Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Chapter 11"

(→‎235, 560n47)
(→‎235, 560-561n50)
Line 212: Line 212:
 
*[[../../Use of sources/Apostles killed Judas|Use of sources: Apostles killed Judas?]]
 
*[[../../Use of sources/Apostles killed Judas|Use of sources: Apostles killed Judas?]]
  
−
====235, 560-561n50====
+
==Response to claim: 235, 560-561n50 - Did 19th century Utah have a long list of crimes that were worthy of death?==
−
{{IndexClaim
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=One Nation Under Gods
 
|claim=
 
|claim=
−
*Did Utah has a long list of crimes that were worthy of death?
+
Did 19th century Utah have a long list of crimes that were worthy of death?
 
|response=
 
|response=
−
*[[19th century crimes alleged to be "worthy of death"]]
 
 
{{Abanes:One Nation:Mormon Reformation}}
 
{{Abanes:One Nation:Mormon Reformation}}
 
|authorquote=
 
|authorquote=
−
*The author includes a long list of crimes that "called for death." This list is from the Tanners, although the Tanners are not credited for the entire list: They are cited once under the "Intermarriage" entry.
+
The author includes a long list of crimes that "called for death." This list is from the Tanners, although the Tanners are not credited for the entire list: They are cited once under the "Intermarriage" entry.
 
}}
 
}}
 +
*[[19th century crimes alleged to be "worthy of death"]]
 +
 
====235====
 
====235====
 
{{IndexClaim
 
{{IndexClaim

Revision as of 15:05, 6 March 2015

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Contents

Response to claims made in "Chapter 11: Bloody Brigham"


Claims made in "Chapter 10: A New Beginning"
A FAIR Analysis of:
One Nation Under Gods
A work by author: Richard Abanes
 Claims made in "Chapter 12: Wars and Rumors of Wars"
To this day Mormons revere Young's destroying angels as well as the Danites.
—One Nation Under Gods, p. 252.
∗       ∗       ∗

225 epigraph, 553-558n1 (PB) - A letter from Aaron DeWitt talks about murder and plunder in Utah

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

A lengthy letter is printed in its entirety in the endnotes. The author says that the letter from Aaron DeWitt was written to his sister Elizabeth Durrant on January 31, 1875 and slipped into a time capsule. The letter talks about murder and plunder in Utah. Source for the letter is an online web address at Saint's Alive (Ed Decker's site): www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/murder.html.

FAIR's Response

Utah/Crime and violence/Aaron Dewitt letter


Response to claim: 227-228 - Broughton D. Harris, Lemuel G. Brandebury and Justice Perry Brocchus and other federal officials fled Utah because they feared for their lives

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Broughton D. Harris, Lemuel G. Brandebury and Justice Perry Brocchus and other federal officials fled Utah because they feared for their lives.

FAIR's Response

Question: Did federal officials flee Utah because they feared for their lives?

There is no evidence that the first federal appointees were threatened or at risk of their lives

Some, despite disagreeing with the Mormons and their administration, did not flee Utah, and suffered no consequences as a result. The St. Louis Republican criticized those who had left as having abandoned their posts, and noted that the judges' report did not suggest that any laws had been broken:

It will, at the first reading, strike everyone that the defense of these returning officers is fatally insufficient in the outset, in this: there is no overt act or crime charged or alleged to have been committed. The judges of the United States court go there, are well received, and from the time of their arrival to their coming away, no attempt is alleged to have been made, to infringe upon their jurisdiction, or refuse obedience to their decisions. On the contrary, as far as the statements go, there seems to have been a disposition to submit to their decisions, as in the case of the secretary and the funds in his hands (italics in original).[1]

Critics of Mormonism rely on the early testimony of some of the first federal officials appointed to Utah territory, and accept their testimony uncritically, despite the fact that virtually all historians' opinions are against the conclusion drawn.

See also: Surveyor general David H. Burr threatened with death?

Identifying the actors

  • Lemuel H. Brandebury - federal judge and territorial court chief justice
  • Perry Brocchus - federal judge and member of territorial supreme court
  • Broughton D. Harris - territorial secretary, had "$24,000 of territorial funds, as well as the seal and records of Utah."[2]

Secondary players

  • Henry R. Day - territorial Indian subagent
  • B. D. Harris - secretary of state
  • Jacob H. Holeman - territorial Indian agent

Things with the new federal appointees began badly

Young's relationship with the non-Mormon officials was damaged from the start when he began a census and called for an election of legislators before the arrival of the non-Mormon officials. Since the Secretary of State was supposed to supervise the census-taking and certify the validity of the election, Young appeared to have acted precipitously.

However, the non-Mormon territorial officials were slow in arriving. Chief Justice Brandebury arrived on 7 June 1851, and Secretary Harris, with Indian agents Stephen B. Rose and Henry R. Day, reached Salt Lake on 19 July, accompanied by Mormon representatives Almon W. Babbitt and John M. Bernhisel. Unwilling to wait for Secretary Harris's arrival, Young instructed his assistants to begin taking the census on 14 March 1851. He felt this was necessary in order to establish legislative and judicial districts and was anxious that an election be held so that territorial representatives could travel to Washington before inclement weather developed. Although the first Monday in August had been designated as election day, Young suggested that the election be held in May in Iron County while he was visiting there. He recommended that Bernhisel be named territorial representative, which recommendation was followed.[3]

Judge Brocchus was also disappointed in his desire to become territorial representative, and was upset to learn that John M. Bernhisel had already been elected.[4]

Historians have not been kind to these first federal appointees

Historian Howard Lamar described Brandebury and Brocchus as "political hacks" and concluded, "Had Fillmore searched the length and breadth of the land he scarcely could have found men less suited to deal with the Saints than the two non-Mormon judges" (Larson 1971, 8 n. 18). Brocchus, the last of the officials to arrive in Utah, arrived on 17 August 1851. In early September he was invited to speak at a general conference of the church. He showed a severe lack of tact by chastising the congregation for their religious beliefs and practices for nearly two hours, until in reaction the congregation became disorderly.[5]

Hubert Howe Bancroft wrote:

The authorities were kindly received by the saints; and had they been men of ability and discretion, content to discharge their duty without interfering with the social and religious peculiarities of the people, all would have been well; but such was not their character or policy. Judge Brocchus especially was a vain and ambitious man, full of self-importance, fond of intrigue, corrupt, revengeful, hypocritical.[6]

Judge Brocchus' speech

After Judge Brocchus' two-hour harangue of the Mormons, during which he attacked their beliefs and insisted that they should appeal to state governments for redress (though they had already done so for Missouri and Illinois and failed), Brigham Young replied:

Judge Brocchus is either profoundly ignorant, or willfully wicked, one of the two. There are several gentlemen on this platform who would be glad to prove the statements referred to in relation to him, as much more, if I would let them have the stand. His speech is designed to have political bearing. If I permit discussion to arise here, there may be either pulling of hair or a cutting of throats. It is well known to every man in this community, and has become a matter of history throughout the enlightened world, that the government of the United States looked on the scenes of robbing, driving, and murdering of this people and said nothing about the matter, but by silence gave sanction to the lawless proceedings. Hundreds of women and children have been laid in the tomb prematurely in [p.212] consequence thereof, and their blood cries to the Father for vengeance against those who have caused or consented to their death....I love the government and the Constitution of the United States, but I do not love the damned rascals who administer the government.

I know [U.S. President] Zachary Taylor, he is dead and damned, and I cannot help it. I am indignant at such corrupt fellows as Judge Brocchus coming here to lecture us on morality and virtue. I could buy a thousand of such men and put them into a bandbox. Ladies and gentlemen, here we learn principle and good manners. it is an insult to this congregation to throw out such insinuations. I say it is an insult, and I will say no more.

After some reflection, a mellowed Young sent the judge a conciliatory letter suggesting an exchange of apologies...:

Dear Sir, —Ever wishing to promote the peace, love, and harmony of the people, and to cultivate the spirit of charity and benevolence to all, and especially towards strangers, I propose, and respectfully invite your honour, to meet our public assembly at the Bowery, on Sunday evening next, at 10 A.M., and address the same people from the stand that you addressed on the 8th inst., at our General Conference; and if your honour shall then and there explain, satisfy, or apologize to the satisfaction of the ladies who heard your address on the 8th, so that those feelings of kindness which you so dearly prized in your address can be reciprocated by them, I shall esteem it a duty and a pleasure to make every apology and satisfaction for my observation which you as a gentleman can claim or desire at my hands.

Should your honour please to accept of this kind and benevolent invitation, please answer by the bearer, that public notice may be given, and widely extended, that the house may be full. And believe me, sir, most sincerely and respectfully, your friend and servant,...

P.S.—Be assured that no gentleman will be permitted to make any reply to your address on that occasion.

Brocchus refused the invitation, asserting that his speech "in all its parts were the result of deliberation and care" and that he did not feel he had said "anything deserving the censure of a justminded person."[7]

The federal officials leave Utah

Soon thereafter, many of the appointees would leave the state, including Brandebury, Brocchus, Harris, and Day:

Brocchus decided to vacate the territory but before leaving told the governor [Brigham Young] that he wanted to "bury the hatchet, shake hands and forget the past." He also asked Young to apologize to those whom he might have offended. Young announced the apology in a meeting the following day, 28 September, and two days later informed Brocchus by letter that his apology would be accepted if he agreed to control his tongue and cease to vilify "those who must everlastingly be your superiors."[8]

Said Brigham later:

The expression, "Old Zechariah Taylor is dead and in hell, and I am glad of it," which the returning officers, in their Report, alleged was said by me, I do not know that I ever thought of, until I heard Brocchus himself mention it on the stand in the Old Bowery. When he made the statement there, I simply bore testimony to the truth of it. But until then, I do not know that it ever came into my mind whether Taylor was in hell or not, any more than it did that any other wicked man was there. I suppose he is where all the ignorant wicked are gone, and where they will continue to go.[9]

Inconsistencies in the stories

Brandebury, Brocchus, Harris, and Day would leave Utah, and later claim that they left because of "the lawless and seditious conduct of the inhabitants of Utah, and Day said specifically that he could 'no longer take the abuse that was being given to the United States and its officials by the Mormons.'"[10]

However, Holeman remained, and while he "complained of the Mormons taking Indian lands [and] also accused Young of using his office and government funds to further Mormon colonization," he seems to have been in no fear for his life.[11]

Brigham Young's office journal would also report on August 18, 1860 of a member's visit to the east:

Bro[ther] G. Cannon observed that many persons of distinction whom he had seen were favorable to mormonism. he had seen Brandebury who was when here associated with Brochus and Harris, he believed Brandebury repented of the course he had taken when in Utah.

There would be no reason for Cannon to lie; the journal was not for public consumption or public-relations purposes. Why would Brandebury have something of a 'change of heart,' if his life had been threatened while in Utah?

The appointees' report that the Mormons were seditious and threatening their lives certainly affected attitudes in the east

But, the new president (Millard Fillmore) did not seem to accept that the appointees were being entirely truthful, and worked with Utah's territorial representative to find appointees that would better interface with the Mormons.[12]

Note on secondary source: Bigler

Some critics of Mormonism rely frequently on Bigler's Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847—1896 (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).

Bigler's work has a prevalent anti-Mormon bias and presentist approach. As one reviewer noted:

Bigler claims that previous historians, presumably LDS ones, have been "too close to the events [of Utah history] to treat them without bias" (p. 16). If this is the case, Bigler does not correct bias so much as invert it....Forgotten Kingdom's assertions apply a seemingly inequitable bias or go contrary to established understandings of well-scrutinized historical patterns. In every instance, Bigler's interpretive choices paint an unfavorable portrait of Latter-day Saints.

Forgotten Kingdom seems to display a problematic interpretive bias in the opposing ways in which it interprets specific similar historical events. In cases where Mormon actions might seem questionable, the worst possible interpretations are often given and Mormons are condemned. In cases where the actions of federal officials might seem questionable, the best possible motives are often assumed and Bigler provides friendly justification.[13]

Also see use of Bigler with similar misrepresentation in:


Response to claim: 228, 559n16-18 - David H. Burr reported that "Mr. Troskolowski," had been "assulted and severely beaten by three men under the direction of one Hickman, a noted member of the so-called Danite Band"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

David H. Burr reported that "Mr. Troskolowski," had been "assulted and severely beaten by three men under the direction of one Hickman, a noted member of the so-called 'Danite Band.'" Was the beating order by LDS leaders because Troskolowski was attempting to ensure that twelve-year-old Emma Wheat escaped a planned marriage to a polygamist?

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 231 - The author claims that the "Mormon reformation" a period of subjugation and brutal acts of violence designed to purge the Church

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that the "Mormon reformation" a period of subjugation and brutal acts of violence designed to purge the Church.

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 232, 559n32 - Who were Brigham Young's "Destroying Angels"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Who were Brigham Young's "Destroying Angels"? Were Porter Rockwell and 'Wild' Bill Hickman the most notorious of these "Destroying Angels?"

FAIR's Response


Response to claim: 233, n36-39 - Brigham taught "blood atonement"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Brigham taught "blood atonement."

FAIR's Response

Question: What is "blood atonement"?

If a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior's sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ.

Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.

Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood Atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement-which was based on voluntary submission by an offender-into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.[14]

Reports of "blood atonement" having occurred were exaggerated and sensationalized

As one historian noted,

That the doctrine [of blood atonement] was preached by high officials is a matter of record; the intent of the sermons became a matter of conjecture; and the results therefrom set vivid imaginations working overtime. Blood fairly flowed through the writing of such men as Beadle in Life in Utah or the Mysteries of Mormonism and Polygamy, in Linn's The Story of Mormonism, and even Stenhouse's anonymous chapter on Reformation and Blood Atonement in his Rocky Mountain Saints. Numerous killings, including the Mountain Meadows massacre, were credited as the fruits of the doctrine....

Omitted from quotations used by the anti-Mormons were restraining clauses such as follow from Brigham Young:

. . . The time has been in Israel under the law of God that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life.

The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

The doctrine of blood atonement which involved concern for the salvation of those to be subjected to it, could have little meaning in the [p.62] Mountain Meadows massacre, or any other of the murders laid unproved on the Mormon threshold (emphasis added).[15]

There is evidence that some crimes were considered worthy of death, even in the apostolic age among Christians

Despite the critics' claims, there is evidence that some crimes were considered worthy of death, even in the apostolic age among Christians:

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him....[Chapter 5] If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not" (1 John 3:15; 1 John 5:16-18) (italics added).


Charles Penrose (1912): "Do you believe in "blood-atonement"?

Charles W. Penrose, Improvement Era (September 1912):

Question 9: Do you believe in "blood-atonement," or in other words, do you accept and believe in the principles taught in Brigham Young's sermon of 8th of February, 1857, Journal of Discourses, volume 4, pages 219, 220?

Answer: We believe in "blood atonement" by the sacrifice of the Savior, also that which is declared in Genesis 9:6. A capital sin committed by a man who has entered into the everlasting covenant merits capital punishment, which is the only atonement he can offer. But the penalty must be executed by an officer legally appointed under the law of the land.[16]


Question: Did early Mormon leaders teach that apostasy was the unforgivable sin, and that the only thing an apostate could do to redeem himself was to give his own life, willingly or unwillingly?

Accusations are unsupported which seek to establish these as activities promoted, condoned, or concealed by the Church or its leaders

While one is no doubt able to dig up examples of blood being shed by members of the Church, accusations are unsupported which seek to establish these as activities promoted, condoned, or concealed by the Church or its leaders generally.[17]

As Gustave O.Larson noted in the Utah Historical Quarterly:

Denials of murder charges which rode in on the backwash of the Reformation gradually resolved into defensible positions that (1) some known killings of the reform period resulted from motives not related to blood atonement, (2) that in spite of extreme statements by some of its leaders the church did not officially condone taking life other than through legal processes, (3) responsibility for any reversions to primitive practices of blood shedding must rest upon fanatical individuals. The whole experience continued in memory as a reminder of ill effects growing out of good causes carried to extremes.[18]

The Deseret News reported the following on June 17, 2010, reporting the Church's recent statement on the subject of Blood Atonement:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday:

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.[19]


Question: Were apostates secretly put to death by "blood atonement" during the administration of Brigham Young?

Despite a number of rhetorical statements in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young

Brigham Young spoke of a doctrine called "blood atonement." Despite a number of rhetorical statements by LDS leaders in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young or any other general authority. Contemporary claims for such actions uniformly come from anti-Mormon books and newspapers with lurid titles such as The Destroying Angels of Mormondom[20]and Abominations of Mormonism Exposed.[21]

The First Presidency issued an official declaration on the matter of killing apostates, as a form of blood atonement, in 1889. This declaration reads, in part:

Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.

We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.[22]


Response to claim: 233, 560n37 - Did Brigham use the term "cutting off" from the earth as a "euphemism for killing"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Brigham use the term "cutting off" from the earth as a "euphemism for killing"?

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 234, 560n43 - Did Jedediah Grant create a list of "highly intrusive" questions so that he could probe members' personal lives?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Jedediah Grant create a list of "highly intrusive" questions so that he could probe members' personal lives?

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 234-235, 560n45-46 - Did Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball encourage murder out of "love" in order to save people's souls?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball encourage murder out of "love" in order to save people's souls?

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball encourage members to kill apostates in an attempt to save their souls?

Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young did not encourage members to kill apostates, much less to do it "out of love"

The critical book One Nation Under Gods states that Brigham Young "encouraged faithful Saints to murder, out of 'love,' all unfaithful Mormons so their souls might be saved." Heber C. Kimball said "[T]his people will never, no never, prosper to a high degree until we make a public example of—what? Men, who have been warned and forewarned....[W]e will take them and slay them before this people. I am talking of those that will persist in this course of iniquity, and not about those who will repent and forsake their sins....They are worthy of death, and they will get it....If God forgives you, I will; but there will be a public example made of such characters, and the time is just at our doors." (paperback edition) [23]

However, when the quotes are seen in their complete context, the critics' claims collapse. They are situated during the Mormon Reformation.

Brigham emphasizes that the sinner must voluntarily submit to this penalty if it were to be applied: This is not a call for mayhem or murder

Brigham Young said:

We talk about the reformation, but recollect that you have only just commenced to walk in the way of life and salvation. You have just commenced in the career to obtain eternal life, which is that which you desire, therefore you have no time to spend only in that path. It is straight and narrow, simple and easy, and is an Almighty path, if you will keep in it. But if you wander off into swamps, or into brambles, and get into darkness, you will find it hard to get back....

And I will say that the time will come, and is now nigh at hand, when those who profess our faith, if they are guilty of what some of this people are guilty of, will find the axe laid at the root of the tree, and they will be hewn down. What has been must be again, for the Lord is coming to restore all things. The time has been in Israel under the law of God, the celestial law, or that which pertains to the celestial law, for it is one of the laws of that kingdom where our Father dwells, that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life.

...Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, "shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?"[24]

As always with his discussion of blood atonement, Brigham emphasizes that the sinner must voluntarily submit to this penalty. This is not a call for mayhem or murder. And the context is that it is a FUTURE circumstance.

Note that the principle is not said to be "in full force" when Brigham spoke

All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shed[d]ing of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?

Now take the wicked, and I can refer to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt, except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hands of their enemies, by the plague, and by the sword, why? Because He loved them, and promised Abraham that He would save them....

I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.[25]

Note that the principle is not said to be "in full force" when Brigham spoke. Thus, he cannot be advocating blood atonement in the present.

Heber is speaking of unrepentant adulterers. He, like Brigham, says the time is "near by," "just at our doors," but it is not now

The quote used in the hardback edition of One Nation Under Gods:

I feel the Lord designs the thing should move along and no blood be shed, because I do not consider God is so anxious that we should be bloodthirsty men as some may be. God designs we should be pure men, holding the oracles of God in holy and pure vessels; but when it is necessary that blood should be shed, we should be as ready to do that as to eat an apple. That is my religion, and I feel that our platter is pretty near clean of some things, and we calculate to keep it clean from this time henceforth and forever, and, as the Scripture reads, "Lay judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet." We shall do that thing, and we shall commence in the mountains. We shall clean the platter of all such scoundrels; and if men and women will not live their religion, but take a course to pervert the hearts of the righteous, we will "lay judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet," and we will let you know that the earth can swallow you up, as it did Korah with his host; and as brother Taylor says, you may dig your graves, and we will slay you, and you may crawl into them.[26]

I do not mean you, if you are not here. I mean those corrupt scoundrels. Well, this is just as brother Brigham has said here hundreds of times.

The quote used in the paperback edition of One Nation Under Gods:

I do think it is outrageous to unwisely expose so much filth as some of our Elders and Missionaries do. If a man is asleep and has besmeared himself, do not expose him, unless the necessity of the case requires it. I feel a good, wholesome spirit and a fatherly spirit to you, brethren; you know I do. But I want my brethren to take a course, if they find their brethren lying under blankets besmeared, not to pull the blankets off from them before they first get water and wash them; save them if you can. You hear us talk about it a great deal, and probably many do not believe one word we say, but this people will never, no never, prosper to a high degree until we make a public example of—what? Men, who have been warned and forewarned, but who will associate with the wicked and take a course to commit whoredom, and will strive to lead our daughters and our wives into the society of poor, wicked curses, with a view to gratify their cursed passions; we will take them and slay them before this people. I am talking of those that will persist in this course of iniquity, and not about those who will repent and forsake their sins. Are there men in our midst who will court other men's wives? Yes, and will take them right to the ungodly for them to seduce, and they will take our daughters and do the same. What are such men worthy of? They are worthy of death, and they will get it. That time is near by, and God has spoken from the heavens, and when certain things are about right, we shall make a public example of those characters. Do you see me? Do you see this Bible and Book of Mormon? If there were ten thousand of those books, I could raise them all to heaven, saying, it is as true as the contents of those books. Do you believe me, brethren? [Yes.] There is no doubt of it. But do all believe me? No. If God forgives you, I will; but there will be a public example made of such characters, and the time is just at our doors. Can we stop this iniquity, until that is done? No, no more than we can stop some from stealing. There is some stealing right in the midst of your reform, brethren.[27]

Heber is speaking of unrepentant adulterers. He, like Brigham, says the time is "near by," "just at our doors," but it is not now. Again, he cannot be advocating the present implementation of blood atonement, or the execution of adulterers who refuse to repent.

This is strong language, but Heber is encouraging people to repent now. He acknowledges that one cannot wipe out all vice and sin until the truly hardened and unrepentant are removed from society—no more than stealing can be avoided.

Heber does not want a public witchhunt, or obsession with vice. Rather, he wishes people to teach sinners privately, and "repent" and "forsake" their sins

What, then, does he want them to do now?

Don't you think it is a better course to take the gentlemen privately and talk over matters, and then take the ladies privately and instruct them, and not open the budget of the filth of their husbands before the wives, nor that of the wives before their husbands? Such filthy characters seem to be the most sanctimonious, the most holy and gracious. I wish you could know one thing, that is, that we know you and can see right through you. I wish all those kind of men and women would get away to the back side of the congregation, and not stick themselves right under my nose. And if we make a party they stick themselves there also, and want to be the head, back, and everything else. If they would take a proper course, they would never intrude upon decent society, until they had repented of and forsaken their abominations....

Heber does not want a public witchhunt, or obsession with vice. Rather, he wishes people to teach sinners privately, and "repent" and "forsake" their sins. There is no call for vengeance, extra-judicial murder, or blood atonement.

Heber calls for restraint and moderation

Heber reads passages from the Book of Mormon about the seriousness of sexual sin, and then says:

You who are tampering with the sin of adultery are sealing your damnation. Some are sitting right before me, with their locks as white as a sheet, who have tampered in these things. What have they done? They have done more hurt, more injury, and thrown more obstructions in the way of the work of God than they ever can restore. They have an atonement to make, there is a debt against them. Why? Because justice will require the debt to be paid. It is for you to arouse yourselves from these things and pay all you can, that there may not be much against you when the accounts are settled up. Bishops go to now and take the course I have suggested; take a course not to expose and ruin men, but let their private sins be privately acknowledged to the Bishop, and he has authority to report them to head quarters: then there can be a way of disposal—why? because God our Father has made a way. There is no situation or circumstance that ever a man was or will be in, but what there is a law touching his case.

Be cautious of your wild fire; I have touched on that, and I want the Bishops to be cautious about it, and not to be overbearing and hard on the people, nor require them to fast three days in the week, and keep them under the big sledge hammer continually. It will not answer. You should pour in a little wine and oil, and the good things of the kingdom of God, and that will temper the iron so that it will yield to the hammer....

Do right, and let the Bishops and Missionaries understand their duty, and they may be the means of palliating your sins and making you comfortable for life. There are women in this congregation who have, probably, been seduced by Elders, by High Priests and men in authority....

Brethren, don't you think the course you would take with a flock of sheep is better for this people, than it is to keep all the time hitting them on the head? It is well enough to hit a rap now and then, that is, to rap some of the old bucks and does that always want to stick their noses first in the salt. In accordance with my eccentric discourse, don't you see that I have not thrown out salt on the floor or on the grass to be wasted? I have given one sheep out there a lap, and another one there, returning to the centre, and don't you feel just as comfortable now as before you got the salt, and a little more so? That is the way to lead the people along, and do not gag them. You may take custard pie and cram it down a person's throat until it makes him vomit; doubtless some of you have crammed your little children until they have vomited the food you gave them.

Heber counsels moderation, private reconciliation of sinners, and avoiding trying to force people to change. He, like many prophets before him, however, also warns that unrepentant sin will eventually bring grave consequences. But, there is no call for his audience or others to implement those consequences.


Response to claim: 235, 560n47 - The author states that Heber C. Kimball claimed that the apostles killed Judas

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author states that Heber C. Kimball claimed that the apostles killed Judas.

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 235, 560-561n50 - Did 19th century Utah have a long list of crimes that were worthy of death?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did 19th century Utah have a long list of crimes that were worthy of death?

FAIR's Response

235

Claim
  •  Author's quote: "Blood began to flow profusely in Utah not long after the reformation was launched."

Response

236, n52

Claim
  • After "relating a dream wherein he had slit the throats of two men 'from ear to ear' with a bowie knife" Brigham said: "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die...Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put on the line, and righteousness to the plummet."

Response

236-237, 563n53 (HB)

Claim
  • "Apostates certainly were viewed as the worst of sinners, although every reprobate received the same penalty. As Brigham instructed his flock: 'If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats.'" (HB)
∗       ∗       ∗
  • "Apostates certainly were viewed as the worst sinners, although every reprobate, risked similar justice. Young once said: "It was asked this morning how we could obtain redress for our wrongs; I will tell you how it could be done, we could take the same law they have taken...and if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats." (PB)


Response


237, 561n54 (PB)

Claim
  • Did Brigham not care what the U.S. thought about "killing evil doers?"

What do you suppose they would say in old Massachusetts….What would they say in old Connecticut?"" They would raise a universal howl of, 'how wicked the Mormons are; they are killing the evil doers who are among them; why I hear that they kill the wicked away up yonder in Utah.'...What do I care for the wrath of man? No more than I do for the chickens that run in my dooryard.


Response

  • Consider the full title of Brigham's discourse:FAITH—PRACTICAL RELIGION—CHASTISEMENT—NECESSITY OF DEVILS. The "necessity of devils" relates to the subject discussed here.


237, 562n55-56 (PB)

Claim
  • Did Brigham Young have a man named Alonzo Bowman killed simply for "innocently asking about LDS beliefs and the facts behind the Saints' troubles?"

Response
 [needs work]
  • The man's name is actually Walter Alonzo Clark Bowman
  • (from MADB): There is mention by Joseph Lee Robinson in his journal that Pres. Young had received "credible information" of "traders" and "several hundred spaniards collegeing with the indians to turn them against us" on April 20 1853. Brigham Young gave a proclamation to "take into custody all groups of spaniards or any suspicious characters" at that time. The account in the story takes place in the summer of 1853.
  • There are no primary sources to support this story. Mary Ettie V. Smith's narrative is highly suspect.
  • Loaded and prejudicial language
  • Danites in anti-Mormon polemic

238, 562n57-59

Claim
  • Did Orson Hyde order Jesse Hartly shot and killed, for the crime of "falling in love with, and marrying, a Mormon?"

Response
  •  Internal contradiction: On p. 238, the author claims apostates were forbidden to leave Utah, yet in this speech Brigham tells violent apostates to leave Utah. Which is it? Was Brigham forcing apostates out with threat of violence, or forbidding apostates from leaving?
  •  Misrepresentation of source: William "Wild Bill" Hickman would later say that his purported autobiography, Brigham's Destroying Angel, was "a lie from the wild boar story onward." [28] The story occurs on pages 29–30. In any case, the referenced pages say nothing about a murder of anyone, much less 'Jesse Hartly', who a text search does not reveal mentioned anywhere in the book.
  • In the endnotes, the author quotes Brigham's "bowie knife" comment once again.
  • Mary Ettie V. Smith is not a reliable source.

Response to claim: 238, 562n60 (PB) - Were William Parrish and his son murdered as they attempted to leave Utah because leaving Utah was "forbidden"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Were William Parrish and his son murdered as they attempted to leave Utah because leaving Utah was "forbidden"?

FAIR's Response


239, 563n63-64

Claim
  • Was Richard Yates was killed for the sin of "trading with government personnel?"

Response
  • William "Wild Bill" Hickman would later say that his purported autobiography, Brigham's Destroying Angel, was "a lie from the wild boar story onward." [29] The story occurs on pages 29–30. Aside from its implausibility, then, this reference has been denied by Hickman. [needs work]

Response to claim: 241, 563n65-66 - Were Henry Jones and his mother murdered by Nathaniel Case, Porter Rockwell and "other church officials"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Were Henry Jones and his mother murdered by Nathaniel Case, Porter Rockwell and "other church officials"?

FAIR's Response

Response to claim: 242-243, n67-71 - Were "innumerable crimes" committed because of the speeches of Brigham Young and other LDS leaders?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Were "innumerable crimes" committed because of the speeches of Brigham Young and other LDS leaders?

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Brigham Young create a 'culture of violence' in 19th century Utah with his incendiary speeches?

The available evidence shows that beyond a few well-publicized murders, Utah was a relatively murder- and violence-free community

Brigham Young is often accused of creating a 'culture of violence' with his incendiary speeches. That accusation would be hard to prove, given the comments below. He makes reference, in 1866, to a man who exhibited the garments to some non-members. Brigham's suggestions to the audience is interesting:

There is also a man down the street who tried to exhibit the endowments to a party who was here. You will see what becomes of that man. Do not touch him. He has forfeited every right and title to eternal life; but let him alone, and you will see by and by what will become of him. His heart will ache, and so will the heart of every apostate that fights against Zion; they will destroy themselves. It is a mistaken idea that God destroys people, or that the Saints wish to destroy them. It is not so.[30]

This claim is generally based on taking anti-Mormon accounts uncritically, and relying on anecdotal evidence. Winnowed to its kernel," writes historian Thomas Alexander, "Bagley's argument [like Abanes' and most other critics in this vein] rests on the proposition that Mormon Utah was a society of officially sanctioned and publicly practiced violence." But, does the data reflect this? Alexander continues:

Statistics of murders for the nineteenth century are difficult to come by, as I learned with the help of Kathryn Daynes and Craig Foster. The available evidence shows, however, that beyond a few well-publicized murders, we have every right to believe that compared with surrounding territories, Utah was a relatively murder- and violence-free community. Historians regularly cite such murders as the Potter-Parrish homicides of 1857 and the killing of J. King Robinson and S. Newton Brassfield in 1866 as evidence of Utah's violent character. Instead of making generalizations from juicy anecdotes, historians ought to use statistical and comparative methodology to interpret these events.

Although we do not have good statistics on murders for the nineteenth century, we do have statistics on lynchings. Unfortunately, the series begins in 1882 rather than in 1847. Lynching is defined as the taking of life by mob action without legal sanction. It does not include such things as murders committed in robberies or other such violent acts, but it would include murders perpetrated for such reasons as blood atonement. These statistics reveal that during the late nineteenth century Utah was one of the least violent of the American West's nineteen states and territories. With 7 lynchings—one of an African American—between 1882 and 1903, Utah had a better record than all the other jurisdictions except Minnesota (6) and Nevada (5). Montana (85), Colorado (65), New Mexico (34), Arizona (28), and even Iowa (16) exhibited a great deal more violence….

Although we lack a thorough comparative study of murders in Utah and other western areas, the available statistical information contradicts Bagley's [and the other critics'] impression of Utah society. The best evidence we have at this time is that Bagley is wrong when he insists that "what made Utah's violence unique in the West was that it occurred in a settled, well-organized community whose leaders publicly sanctioned doctrines of vengeance and ritual murder." In fact, barring further evidence to the contrary, the best evidence we have at this point is that Utah was one of the least violent jurisdictions in the western United States.[31]

Contemporary observers that were not writing hostile anti-Mormon polemics recognized the truth of this as well

This portrayal goes counter to the accounts of contemporary observers and the understanding of historians who have investigated the matter of crime in nineteenth-century Utah. In fact, if anything distinguished Deseret from elsewhere in the West, it was its reputation for well-established and fair courts (administered by LDS bishops) and a remarkably low level of violence—vigilante, criminal, or otherwise.[32]

Legal historian D. Michael Stewart underscored this when he remarked, "extralegal violence was rare compared to that found in other frontier communities."[33]

Non-member Franklin Buck described the difference between southern Utah and his own town of Pioche, Nevada in 1871:

In Pioche [Nevada] we have two courts, any number of sheriffs and police officers and a jail to force people to do what is right. There is a fight every day and a man killed about every week. About half the town is whisky shops and houses of ill fame. In these Mormon towns there are no courts, no prisons, no saloons, no bad women; but there is a large brick Church and they keep the Sabbath—a fine schoolhouse and all the children go to school. All difficulties between each other are settled by the Elders and the Bishop. Instead of every man trying to hang his neighbor, they all pull together. There is only one store on the co-operative plan and all own shares and it is really wonderful to see what fine towns and the wealth they have in this barren country. It shows what industry and economy will do when all work together....The Devil [i.e., the Mormons] is not as black as he is painted.[34]

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Death to Seducers! Examples of Latter-day Saint-led Extralegal Justice in Historical Context"

Craig L. Foster,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (2020)
Some people have suggested a strain of violence within nineteenth- century Latter-day Saint culture as violent as and perhaps more so than that of most Americans around them. Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints point to a few well-known acts of extralegal violence as evidence of a culture of violence that permeated the early Church. But were these examples of violence really out of the norm of nineteenth-century American society? This article looks at examples of extralegal punishment for certain crimes, placing them and the examples of extralegal punishment in Utah within a greater historical and cultural context.

Click here to view the complete article


Response to claim: 244-245, 566n82 (HB) 564n82 (PB) - Did a prohibition of selling supplies to the Fancher party lead to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did a prohibition of selling supplies to the Fancher party lead to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

FAIR's Response

Question: Did Brigham Young issue orders that no food or grain should be sold to "Gentiles" that were passing through Utah?

The full context of the letter from Brigham is totally and utterly lost in an effort to cast Brigham in the worst light possible

The critical book One Nation Under Gods mentions "Brigham's prohibition on trading with Gentiles." The author states that "on August 2, 1857, Young wrote a letter telling church leaders to make sure no one sold as much as 'one kernal' of grain to their enemies. The author cites "Brigham Young letter to Bronson and Haight, August 2, 1857, MS 1234 LDSCA." [35]

In attempting to identify reasons for conflict between Utah Mormons and non-Mormon emigrants and travelers, the author uses a letter from Brigham Young out of context and insert words into the text that don't exist. All this, without even having a complete copy of the text of the letter the he used as documentation. The author has twisted and contorted this letter to serve the purpose of placing Brigham in the light of being a ruthless governor, attempting to starve the "Gentiles," while stocking up on weapons and ammunition. The full context is totally and utterly lost in an effort to cast Brigham in the worst light possible. It is simply misleading to omit the underlying reasons for Brigham's instructions.

The critics' version of the letter from Brigham Young

When asked for a copy of the text of the letter from Young to Bronson, the author provided the following:

Bishop Bronson, Dear Brother,

I wish you to notify all Presiding elders within Millard County to have the Brethren in their district to save all their grain, nor let a kernal [sic] go to waste or be sold to our enemies. And those who persist in selling grain to the gentiles, or suffer their stock to trample it into the earth I wish you to note as such. Let the Bishops get all the grain not necessary for immediate use, into their hands, if possible…. Save your ammunition, keep your Guns and Pistols in order, and prepare yourselves in all things-particularly by living your religion-for that which may hereafter come to pass. Praying that God may add to you his blessing.

I am your Brother in Christ

Copy sent to president I.C. Haight for the Bishops and presiding Elders in and south of Iron County.

The author did not have a copy of the actual letter. He only had an abbreviated and incomplete copy obtained by someone else

Here is the complete letter (The author didn't know the contents of the omitted portion) from the Church Archives (with the omitted portion in ellipsis, above, written in BOLD ALL CAPS, below):

I wish you to notify all Presiding elders within Millard County to have the Brethren in their districts to save all their grain; nor let a kernal [sic] go to waste or be sold to our enemies. And those who persist in selling grain to the gentiles, or suffer their stock to trample it into the earth I wish you to note as such. Let the Bishops get all the grain not necessary for immediate use, into their hands, if possible; AND BY HAVING GOOD STOREAGES, TAKE MEASURES TO PRESERVE IT AS LONG AS MAY BE NECESSARY.

LET EVERY POUND OF WOOL BE USED TO THE BEST ADVANTAGE IN MANUFACTURING COMFORTABLE CLOTHING AS IT MAY HEREAFTER BE HIGHLY IMPORTANT TO US. Save your ammunition, keep your Guns and Pistols in order, and prepare yourselves in all things-particularly by living your religion-for that which may hereafter come to pass. Praying that God may add to you his blessing.

First, the intent of Brigham's orders was not to "starve" the travelers by withholding food. There was absolutely no malice involved, using this source as a reference. The obvious purpose was conservation and having the bishops store all the grain they could and not let "one kernal" go to waste, period. Of course, the reader wouldn't get this from the selective quoting the author uses or without the entire context and the omitted section about storing and preserving it as long as possible.

Second, there is no mention of "food." The author's assertion that food was implied by Brigham, as an item not to sell or trade with the emigrants, has no basis. This letter only mentions grain, which was used for feeding livestock or could be turned into flour for obvious food purposes. It has been pointed out by others that traveling emigrants would have had no use for grain as food. They didn't have mobile wheat grinders. The grain would have only been used for livestock. Had Brigham meant food, he would have included many other food items that were in the possession of the Utah residents. Brigham's deposition in John D. Lee's trial also demonstrates that was exactly what he was talking about.

Counsel and advice were given to the citizens not to sell grain to the emigrants to feed their stock, but to let them have sufficient for themselves if they were out

Was any counsel or instructions given by any person to the citizens of Utah not to sell grain or trade with the emigrant trains passing through Utah at that time? If so, what were those instructions and counsel?

[Brigham Young] Answer—Yes, counsel and advice were given to the citizens not to sell grain to the emigrants to feed their stock, but to let them have sufficient for themselves if they were out. The simple reason for this was that for several years our crops had been short, and the prospect was at that time that we might have trouble with the United States army, then enroute for this place, and we wanted to preserve the grain for food. The citizens of the Territory were counseled not to feed grain to their own stock. No person was ever punished or called in question for furnishing supplies to the emigrants, within my knowledge." (The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks, p. 286)

Third, this conservation and preparation effort was not limited to "food" and "weapons" as the author would have his readers believe. In the context of the letter, wool and clothing and storage of grain are also mentioned, giving us a larger picture that malice toward the "Gentiles" was not the intent; preparing for battle with and deprivation of the "Gentiles" was not the purpose. Conservation, preparing for hard times, and the imminent arrival of the Army were the purposes.


Response to claim: 245 - "The emigrants could not have known that two of the sins worthy of blood atonement were condemning Joseph Smith and/or consenting to his death"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "The emigrants could not have known that two of the sins worthy of blood atonement were condemning Joseph Smith and/or consenting to his death."

FAIR's Response

245, 564n86 (PB)

Claim
  •  Author's quote: "The prophet...already had decided the fate of the Baker-Fancher party...at a secret meeting in Salt Lake City with several Indian chiefs."

Response

Response to claim: 245, 564n87 - Did Brigham promise the Indians that they could have all the cattle in the Fancher wagon-train "if they would do away with the entire company"?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Brigham promise the Indians that they could have all the cattle in the Fancher wagon-train "if they would do away with the entire company"?

FAIR's Response


251, 565n103

Claim
  • When Brigham Young visited the Mountain Meadows site in 1860 and saw the monument, did he order it to be demolished?

Response

252, 565n109 (PB)

Claim
  • Was John D. Lee's "constant companion throughout his trial" was a Methodist minister, "even though Lee had been taught all his life that Christendom's ministers were satanically-inspired and corrupt?"

Response

Response to claim: 252, 565n111 (PB) - "To this day Mormons revere Young's destroying angels as well as the Danites"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "To this day Mormons revere Young's destroying angels as well as the Danites."

FAIR's Response

Notes


  1. ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 3:535-537. GospeLink
  2. ↑ Michael W. Homer, "The Judiciary and the Common Law in Utah Territory, 1850-61," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 21 no. 1 (Spring 1998), 98-99.
  3. ↑ Eugene E. Campbell, Establishing Zion: The Mormon Church in the American West, 1847-1869 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1998), 210.
  4. ↑ Eugene E. Campbell, Establishing Zion: The Mormon Church in the American West, 1847-1869 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1998), 210.
  5. ↑ Edwin Brown Firmage and Richard Collin Mangrum, Zion in the Courts : a Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830–1900 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 215. ISBN 0252069803.
  6. ↑ Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Utah (San Francisco, CA: The History Company, Publishers, 1890), 465.
  7. ↑ Campbell, 211-12.
  8. ↑ Campbell, 213.
  9. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:185.
  10. ↑ Campbell, 105.
  11. ↑ Campbell, 105.
  12. ↑ Campbell, 218-220.
  13. ↑ Eric A. Eliason, "Review of: Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896," FARMS Review of Books 12/1 (2000): 95–112. off-site
  14. ↑ Lowell M. Snow, "Blood atonement," Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
  15. ↑ Gustave O. Larson, "The Mormon Reformation," Utah Historical Quarterly 26/1 (January 1958): 60-62.
  16. ↑ Charles W. Penrose, "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15 no. 11 (September 1912).
  17. ↑ Criticisms regarding "blood atonement" are raised in the following publications: Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 232-236 ( Index of claims ); "Achilles" [pen name for Samuel D. Sirrine], The Destroying Angels of Mormondom; or a Sketch of the Life of Orrin Porter Rockwell, the Late Danite Chief; Sally Denton, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, (Secker & Warburg, 2003), 16. ; Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers; William Hall, The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed (Cincinnati: I. Hart & Co., 1853), ?.; Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 236. ( Index of claims ); Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3)
  18. ↑ Gustave O. Larson, "The Mormon Reformation," Utah Historical Quarterly 26/1 (January 1958): 62.
  19. ↑ See Deseret News Thursday, June 17, 2010
  20. ↑ "Achilles" [pen name for Samuel D. Sirrine], The Destroying Angels of Mormondom; or a Sketch of the Life of Orrin Porter Rockwell, the Late Danite Chief, (San Francisco, 1878).
  21. ↑ William Hall, The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed (Cincinnati: I. Hart & Co., 1853), {{{pages}}}.
  22. ↑ Official Declaration, 12 December 1889, signed by the First Presidency (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith), the Quorum of the Twelve (Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young Jr., Moses Thatcher, Francis M. Lyman, John Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Heber J. Grant, John W. Taylor, M.W. Merrill, A.H. Lund, and Abraham H. Cannon), and counselors (John W. Young and Daniel H. Wells).
  23. ↑ Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, page 234-235 (hardback and paperback)
  24. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:219-220.
  25. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:219-220.
  26. ↑ Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 6:34-35.
  27. ↑ Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 4:173-174.
  28. ↑ Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, A Book of Mormons (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1982), 123. See also Hope A. Hilton, "Wild Bill" Hickman and the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1988), 127.
  29. ↑ Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, A Book of Mormons (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1982), 123. See also Hope A. Hilton, "Wild Bill" Hickman and the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1988), 127.
  30. ↑ (1866) Journal of Discourses 11:262. Also in Deseret News 15:315.
  31. ↑ Thomas G. Alexander, "Review of Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows," Brigham Young University Studies 31 no. 1 (January 2003), 167–. Citation reads: "James Elbert Cutler, Lynch-Law: "An Investigation into the History of Lynching in the United States," (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969), 180. On the lynching of an African-American, see Craig L. Foster, "Myth vs. Reality in the Burt Murder and Harvey Lynching," manuscript furnished by the author. I am indebted to Foster for sharing other material on lynching as well." Alexander is quoting from Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, 42.
  32. ↑ Eric A. Eliason, "Review of: Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896," FARMS Review of Books 12/1 (2000): 95–112. off-site; citing Dale L. Morgan, The State of Deseret (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1987), 7—27.
  33. ↑ Eric A. Eliason, "Review of: Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896," FARMS Review of Books 12/1 (2000): 95–112. off-site citing D. Michael Stewart, "The Legal History of Utah," in Utah History Encyclopedia, ed. Alan K. Powell (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994), 323.
  34. ↑ Franklin A. Buck, A Yankee Trader in the Gold Rush: The Letters of Franklin A. Buck, comp. Katherine A. White (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930), 234–36; cited by W. Paul Reeve and Ardis E. Parshall, "review of Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Will Bagley," Mormon Historical Studies (Spring 2003): 156.
  35. ↑ Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, Endnote 82, page 566 (hardback)
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Chapter_11&oldid=137087"