Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Chapter 11

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

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.

∗       ∗       ∗

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.

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).

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.'"

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.

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.

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.

Also see use of Bigler with similar misrepresentation in:

• Sally Denton, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, (Secker & Warburg, 2003), 67.

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?

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

• Mormon Reformation
• Crime and violence in Utah
• Danites in anti-Mormon polemic
• Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Absurd claims

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

• Loaded and prejudicial language

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."

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Mormondomand Abominations of Mormonism Exposed.

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.

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

• Use of sources: Cutting off from the earth

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

• Absurd claims: "highly intrusive questions"

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

FAIR's Response

• Use of sources: Murder unfaithful Mormons to save souls

Claim

• Did Heber C. Kimball claim that the apostles killed Judas?

Response

•  Misrepresentation of source: Heber did not claim the apostles carried out the killing.
• Use of sources: Apostles killed Judas?

Claim

• Did Utah has a long list of crimes that were worthy of death?

Response

• 19th century crimes alleged to be "worthy of death"
• Mormon Reformation
• Crime and violence in Utah
• Danites in anti-Mormon polemic

Claim

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

Response

• Mormon Reformation
• Crime and violence in Utah
• Danites in anti-Mormon polemic
• Absurd claims: blood began to flow profusely ^{[needs work]}
• Loaded and prejudicial language

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

•  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?
• Use of sources: Brigham and bowie knife
• Church doctrine/Repudiated/Blood atonement
• Mormon Reformation
• Crime and violence in Utah
• Danites in anti-Mormon polemic

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

• Use of sources: Brigham Says to "Cut Their Throats"
• Church doctrine/Repudiated/Blood atonement
• Mormon Reformation
• Crime and violence in Utah
• Danites in anti-Mormon polemic

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.

• Notable omissions:killing the evil doers
• Church doctrine/Repudiated/Blood atonement
• Mormon Reformation
• Crime and violence in Utah
• Danites in anti-Mormon polemic

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

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." 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"?

• Mormon Reformation
• Crime and violence in Utah
• Danites in anti-Mormon polemic

FAIR's Response

• Notable omissions: Parrish murder

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." 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"?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

• Mountain Meadows Massacre

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."

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."

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

•  The author's claim is false: Use of sources: Brigham Young ordered Mountain Meadows Massacre?
• Mountain Meadows Massacre
• Bigler, the author's source distorts and misrepresents LDS history on numerous counts.

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

• Brigham Young ordered Mountain Meadows Massacre?
• Mountain Meadows Massacre

Claim

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

Response

• Use of sources: Brigham Young orders MMM monument demolished
• Mountain Meadows Massacre

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

• The author is now repeating himself.
• Mountain Meadows Massacre
• Loaded and prejudicial language

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."

Notes