the “reign of terror” in utah:—the reformation of the saints.
the people were now thoroughly excited. their religious antipathy, their political hatred—two of the most powerful passions which move individuals or bodies of men—had been appealed to, and both in public and private they had been stirred up to a pitch of frenzy which it is hardly possible at the present time to comprehend.
there were whisperings now of a most fearful doctrine, calculated not only to strike terror into the hearts of those whose faith was weakening, but even to shock with a sense of horror those who only heard of it from afar—i mean the doctrine of the blood atonement.
the saints had all along been taught to distinguish between murder and the shedding of innocent blood—the former being spoken of as a crime for which atonement might be made, but for the latter there was no repentance on earth—it was an unpardonable sin. they were also taught to distinguish carefully between sins which might be forgiven, and sins for which pardon was impossible. now the difference between murder and shedding innocent blood is this:—the latter is the crime of killing a saint, which can never be forgiven, but by the death of the transgressor; but the former is of quite a different character. to murder a gentile may sometimes be inexpedient, or perhaps even to a certain extent wrong, but it is seldom if ever a crime, and never an unpardonable sin.
a friend of mine was in a state of apostacy. the bishop went to her to expostulate, and told her that, if he were her husband, he would get rid of her and take away her children as well—he would not on any account live with her.
“perhaps,” she said, “you would not allow me to live at all?”
“certainly not,” he replied. “i would think about as much of killing you or any other miserable apostate as i would[236] about killing a cat. if brigham young were to tell me to put you to death, i would do it with the greatest of pleasure;—and it would be for your good, too.”
thus, when the famous revelation on polygamy says that a man cannot be pardoned for shedding innocent blood, it does not mean that he cannot be pardoned for murdering a gentile or an apostate; for that, under some circumstances, might even be meritorious; but that the murder of a saint by one of the brethren cannot under any circumstances be forgiven on earth, and that his only chance of forgiveness lies in his own blood being shed as an “atonement.”
certain sins cannot be forgiven here on earth—shedding innocent blood, divulging the secrets of the endowment house—marital unfaithfulness on the part of the wife—apostacy;—these are unpardonable. all other crimes which gentiles abhor may become even virtues, if done in the cause of the church. i do not, of course, mean to say that the mass of the mormon people act up to such atrocious doctrines; for although, when among themselves, they would admit that the theory was correct, the better instincts of their nature keep them from ever putting that theory into practice. but what i do mean to say is, that such doctrines have, over and over again, been distinctly taught in the plainest words in the public hearing of thousands; that they have been printed and reprinted by authority; that they have been practised, and the very highest of the mormon leaders have applauded; and that, even at the present moment, these doctrines form part of the dogmas of the church. it is this day a matter of fact, and not a matter of question, that if any mormon apostate were to commit any of the unpardonable sins which i have mentioned, and if he or she were to be assassinated by a private individual, all zealous mormons—all the leaders—would maintain that not only was the deed justifiable but even meritorious!
this may seem bad enough, but it is not the worst. the doctrine of the “blood atonement” is that the murder of an apostate is a deed of love! if a saint sees another leave the church, or if even he only believes that his brother’s faith is weakening and that he will apostatize before long, he knows that the soul of his unbelieving brother will be lost if he dies in such a state, and that only by his blood being shed is there any chance of forgiveness for him; it is therefore the kindest action that he can perform toward him to shed his blood—the doing so is a deed of truest love. the nearer, the dearer, the[237] more tenderly loved the sinner is, the greater the affection shown by the shedder of blood—the action is no longer murder or the shedding of innocent blood, for the taint of apostacy takes away its innocence—it is making atonement, not a crime; it is an act of mercy, therefore meritorious.
these were the terrible teachings which the “reformation” brought to light:—they had been whispered before among the elect, and had been acted upon by the “avenging angels,” but before this they had never been publicly and intelligibly explained.
jedediah m. grant, an enthusiast of the wildest kind; a man without education or mental discipline of any description; one of the first presidency and high in authority among the saints, had occasion to attend a meeting which was held at kaysville, a place about twenty-five miles distant from salt lake city, and he invited some of the elders to meet him there to take part in the proceedings. to one of these “jeddy,” as he was familiarly called, obligingly lent a mule; he himself did not accompany the party, but went on before. these elders were pretty well mounted, and one of them, being a good horseman, made the rest keep up with him. in consequence of this, when they arrived at kaysville, the beasts were heated and tired. the apostle “jeddy” watched them but said nothing.
up to a certain point, the meeting passed off pleasantly enough; the elders present were “good at testimony” and strong in exhorting the hearers to faithfulness. jeddy was the last speaker. he began in his usual way, but presently warmed up until he became quite excited, and then proceeded to accuse every one present of all sorts of wrong-doing. the elders who had preceded him came in for their full share; he denounced them for their inconsistency and hypocrisy, and bitterly upbraided them for running his mule and their own beasts in such a manner. the bishop of the place and his counsellors he accused of inactivity and carelessness; and he called loudly upon every one present to repent and do their first works; threatening them with the speedy judgments of heaven.
all this was well enough if it had stopped there, for it might have been taken for just what it was—an ebullition of temper on the part of “jeddy,” who was naturally vexed that his mule had been over-heated. but, like many other manias and epidemics, this mormon movement began with a most insignificant trifle, and the spirit of fiery denunciation became perfectly[238] contagious. another meeting was held in the course of a few weeks, and then the mutual accusations of those who were present became, if possible, more bitter than before; the “saints” were denounced as the vilest of sinners, and they were all commanded to be re-baptized. accordingly, after the meeting, although it was night and the weather was cold, a considerable number were immersed by the elders, and jeddy himself was so enthusiastically engaged in the performance, and he remained in the water so long that he got a thorough chill, and contracted the disease of which he died.
sunday after sunday similar scenes were repeated in the tabernacle, until, had it not been painful, the whole affair would have been ludicrous in the extreme. every one had strayed from the path of duty, and the fact was announced in the strongest terms. people were called upon by name to publicly confess their sins, and many were then and there pointed out and accused of crimes of which they were entirely guiltless, but which they dared not deny. in the midst of all this, the duty of implicit obedience to the priesthood and the payment of tithes was loudly insisted upon.
the missionaries were sent out all over the territory, armed with the full authority of the priesthood, and also a catechism which, on account of its obscene character, has since been bought up so successfully by brigham that it is doubtful if there is a copy in existence. the mormons have a curious way of appointing missionaries. if a man is weak in the faith—a depraved, bad man—or if a youth exhibits a disposition to sow his wild oats a little too luxuriantly, he is sent on his travels to preach the gospel; nothing strengthens a man’s faith, it is thought, more than having to defend it from the opposition of unbelievers, and the enforced good example which the missionary is obliged to set will, it is said, produce a salutary effect upon the exuberance of youth or the depravity of more mature years. in the present instance many of the missionaries thus sent forth were known to be as immoral as they were grossly ignorant.
there was one terrible meeting at which brigham himself was put to the blush. men of note were there; no one was present who did not belong to the priesthood. “jeddy” held forth, and heber and brigham were strong upon the occasion. in the midst of the proceedings, brother brigham, full of confidence, in the plainest words called upon all who could not plead guiltless of certain crimes to stand up. three-fourths of those present immediately arose. utterly shocked,[239] the prophet entered into explanations; but self-convicted these three-fourths of his hearers stood conscientiously firm. even brigham saw the necessity of taking some stringent measures. the saints were told that if they were re-baptized their sins would be washed away, and they could then say they were not guilty of the crimes suggested in the catechism. subsequently the catechism itself was, as i said, bought up and burnt.
the burden of every sermon was unquestioning obedience, repentance, payment of tithing, and above all the taking of more wives. the missionaries, without the slightest ceremony, would visit the houses of respectable saints, examine them out of the abominable catechism, and question husbands and wives in the presence of their children about even their very thoughts, in a manner, and upon subjects, which would amply have justified their being hung up to the nearest tree; lynch law was in fact too good for such atrocities. wicked ideas, the utterance of which would have called forth a blush, even if heard from the lips of a drunken rowdy in a pot-house, were suggested and explained to young children; while it would have been literally at the risk of life for their parents to have expostulated; to do so would have shown want of faith, and want of faith would have justified some fanatical scoundrel in using his knife or his pistol for the loving purpose of cutting off his brother’s soul from earth in order to save it in heaven!
meanwhile jedediah did not for a moment cease his exhortations; the work must be done thoroughly: the blood-atonement must not be forgotten. on one occasion, in the tabernacle, this crazy fanatic said:—
“i would advise some of you men here to go to president young, and confess your sins, and ask him to take you outside the city and have your blood shed to atone for your sins.”
...
“there are men and women that i would advise to go to the president immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood....
“i would ask how many covenant-breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom? i believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant-breakers, we need a place designated where we can shed their blood.”
...
“we have been trying long enough with this people, and i[240] go in for letting the sword of the almighty be unsheathed, not only in word but in deed.”
lest he should be mistaken, he said:—
“what ought this meek people who keep the commandments of god do unto them? ‘why,’ says one, ‘they ought to pray the lord to kill them,’ i want to know if you would wish the lord to come down and do all your dirty work?.... when a man prays for a thing, he ought to be willing to perform it himself.... putting to death the transgressors would exhibit the law of god, no matter by whom it was done.”
heber c. kimball, the “model saint,” after a speech to the same effect, in which, as usual, he made use of the most disgusting language, added:—
“joseph smith was god to the inhabitants of the earth when he was among us, and brigham is god now!”
but more shocking than any other was the language of brigham young himself. on the 21st of september, 1856, in a discourse delivered in the bowery, great salt lake city, and afterwards reprinted by authority in the journals of discourses, vol. iv., pp. 53-4, he said:—
“the time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall take the old broadsword and ask, ‘are you for god?’ and if you are not heartily on the lord’s side, you will be hewn down!”
...
“there are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world or in that which is to come; and if they had their eyes opened to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins, and the smoking incense would atone for their sins; whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain with them in the spirit world.
“i know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them....
“i do know that there are sins committed of such a nature that, if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. and, furthermore, i know that there are transgressors who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to god as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the[241] law might have its course. i will say, further, i have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.
“it is true that the blood of the son of god was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. as it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.”
one would have supposed that even brigham had now reached the culminating point of horror and blasphemy. but no;—a month or so later he even surpassed himself when in a tabernacle sermon he said:—
“when will we love our neighbours as ourselves? in the first place, jesus said that no man hateth his own flesh. it is admitted by all that every person loves himself. now if we do rightly love ourselves, we want to be saved, and continue to exist; we want to go into the kingdom where we can enjoy eternity, and see no more sorrow nor death. this is the desire of every person who believes in god. 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 beauties 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 had 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 a woman in this house but would say, ‘shed my blood that i might be saved and exalted with the gods?’
“all mankind love themselves: and let those principles but be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. this would be loving ourselves even unto an eternal exaltation. will you love your brothers or sisters likewise when they have a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? that is what jesus christ meant. he never told a man or woman to love their[242] enemies in their wickedness, never. he never meant any such thing; his language is left as it is for those to read who have the spirit to discern between truth and error; it was so left for those who can discern the things of god. jesus christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness.
“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 and 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 exaltion, but if their blood had been spilled it would have been better for them.
“the wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle 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; if he wants salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.
“any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, should not be satisfied or rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. that is the way to love mankind.... light and darkness cannot dwell together, and so it is with the kingdom of god.
“now, brethren and sisters, will you live your religion? how many hundreds of times have i asked that question! will the latter-day saints live their religion?”
and so, according to brigham young, their prophet, this was the religion of the saints! and the people acted up to the “religion” thus taught: and the story is so terrible that one dare not even whisper all its details.
it is no secret that all this was understood literally. the wife of one elder, when he was absent on a mission, acted unfaithfully towards him. her husband took counsel of the authorities, and was reminded that the shedding of her blood alone could save her. he returned and told her, but she asked for time, which was readily granted. one day, in a[243] moment of affection, when she was seated on his knee, he reminded her of her doom, and suggested that now when their hearts were full of love was a suitable time for carrying it into execution. she acquiesced, and out of love he cut her throat from ear to ear.
in many instances the outrages committed against persons who were known to be innocent were so revolting that no woman—nay, even no right-minded man—would venture to more than just allude to them. a few, however, and only a few, and they by no means the worst, of the milder cases i will just mention.
there was the murder of the aikin party—six persons—who were killed on their way to california. the same year a man name yates was killed under atrocious circumstances; and franklin mcneil who had sued brigham for false imprisonment and who was killed at his hotel door. there was sergeant pike, and there was arnold and drown. there was price and william bryan at fairfield; there was almon babbitt, and brassfield, and dr. robinson; there was also james cowdy and his wife and child, and margetts and his wife; and many another, too—to say nothing of that frightful murder at the mountain meadows.
besides these there is good reason to think that lieutenant gunnison and his party were also victims, although it was said that they were shot by “indians.” the potter and parrish murders were notorious; forbes, and jones and his mother, might be added to the same list; the dumb boy, andrew bernard; a woman killed by her own husband; morris the rival prophet, and banks, and four women who belonged to their party; isaac potter, and charles wilson, and john walker. these are but a few. the death list is too long for me to venture to give it.
one instance i can give from my own personal knowledge. a sister, who occasionally does a little work at my house, on one occasion said to me: “mrs. stenhouse, when first i came to this country i lived in the southern portion of utah. one day i saw a woman running across the fields towards our house, pale and trembling. when she came in she looked round her as if she were frightened, and she asked if any one besides our own family were present. on being assured that there was no one present whom she might fear, she said:—‘two men came to our house late last night and asked to see my husband, who had already retired. he was in bed, but they insisted that he must get up, as they had a message from[244] “the authorities” for him. when they saw him they requested him to go with them to attend, they said, to some church business. i became very much alarmed, for my poor husband had been known to speak rather freely of late of some of the measures of the church, but he tried to reassure me, and finally left the house with the two men. in about an hour after they came back, bearing between them his lifeless body. they laid him upon the bed, and then one of them pulled aside the curtain which constituted our only cupboard, and took therefrom a bake-kettle and stood it beside the bed, in order to catch the blood that was flowing from a fearful wound in his throat. they then left the house, telling me to make as little noise about it as possible, or they might serve me in the same way. the men were masked, and i cannot tell who they are, but i spent a fearful night with my poor dead husband.’” this sister added: “sister stenhouse, in those more fearful times we dared not speak to each other about such things for fear of spies.”
these were all well-known and notorious instances. i say nothing of those of whose fate nothing—not even a whisper—was ever heard; and i say nothing of the frightful “cuttings off” before the reformation and in recent years.
gentile men and women were killed, for hatred; and that “killing” was no murder, for theirs was not innocent blood. apostates, and saints of doubtful faith, and those who were obnoxious, had their blood shed—all for love—and that “cutting off” was also no murder, because to secure their salvation by cutting their throats was an act of mercy. can it be possible that men should thus act and say—and believe—that jesus, the gentle and merciful saviour, commanded it when he said: “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”?
all through this reign of terror, marrying and giving in marriage was the order of the day. it mattered not if a man was seventy years of age, according to brother brigham he was still a boy—“the brethren are all boys until they are a hundred years old”—and some young girl of sixteen, fifteen, or even younger would be “counselled”—that is, commanded—to marry him. she might even have a sister no older than herself, and then as likely as not he would take the two to wife, and very probably both on the same day. the girls were told that to marry a young man was not a safe thing, for young men were not tried—it was better to marry a well-tested patriarch, and then their chances of “exaltation” in the kingdom of heaven were sure and certain. in this way[245] the life-long happiness of many a girl—little more than a child—was blighted for ever. at the time of which i speak, every unmarried woman, or girl who could by the utmost stretch of possibility be thought old enough to marry, was forced to find a husband, or a husband was immediately found for her, and without any regard to her wishes was forced upon her. young men, and even boys, were forced, not only into marriage, but even polygamy, and none dared resist. the marrying mania, in fact, was universal and irresistible—everyone must marry or be given in marriage. so evidently was this the case that women in jest said that, if one were to hang a petticoat upon a fence-pole, half a dozen men would flock at once to marry it! absurd as this may seem, it was not very far from the truth. young men and maidens, old men and children, widows, virgins, and youths—in fact, every one, whether married or unmarried, it mattered not, was “counselled”—commanded—to marry.
there is above fanaticism a stronger law which, despite every effort of the deluded victim, will occasionally make itself heard—the voice of nature. even during that strange time in which every saint seemed to have gone stark crazy mad, the frightful anomaly of men of fifty, sixty, and even seventy, marrying mere children—girls of fourteen, and even thirteen—forced itself upon the attention of some of the leaders. the question arose—an odd question to gentile ears—“at what age is a girl old enough to marry?” considerable discussion ensued, and even in the tabernacle the subject was taken up. the voice of authority, however, eventually answered the matter, but not in the way that any ordinary civilized person would expect.
in those times, unmarried girls were very scarce—in the settlements it was difficult to find any at all. not infrequently it happened that a brother was “counselled” to marry, but could not obey, as there was no unmarried woman in the place where he lived. in that case he generally paid a visit to salt lake city. but business at the endowment house nevertheless was pretty lively; in fact, so much so that it was deemed necessary to set apart certain days for the various settlements. once, when the “provo day” was fast approaching, two old brethren from that town who had been counselled to enlarge their families, but who had been unsuccessful in finding partners, began to despair of being able to obey “the word of the lord!” the day before that appointed for the endowments and celestial marriage arrived, and they were as[246] far from success as ever. being neighbours, the two old gentlemen met and mingled their griefs, and considered what might be done. it then occurred to them that there was a certain brother who had two daughters, respectively twelve and fourteen years of age, and they resolved to call upon him about these children. as might be supposed, the father at first refused them, giving as a reason that the girls were too young. the old men explained that if they could not marry the children it was impossible for them to “obey counsel,” and the father then agreed. the next morning the marriage ceremony was performed in the endowment house. one of these wretches was sixty years of age, and the other a few years younger. the father of the children was about forty. i am really afraid that the reader will think that i exaggerate or misrepresent facts. i wish it were so, for the case is so outrageously atrocious; but i am sorry to say that scores and hundreds of instances similar to this, which occurred during the reformation, might be given.
there are before me as i write, letters, papers, documents of various sorts relative to marriage and the matrimonial affairs of the saints, at the time of which i speak, that i wish the reader could peep at. i would not like him to read them—in fact, i dared not read them all myself, for some of them are so shameful that the mere knowledge of having read them through would make any right-minded person blush. taking more wives was the order of the day—how, was of little matter.
the work of “reformation” was in full progress; the people were excited to frenzy; the federal troops were expected; men were marrying and maidens were given in marriage; every one in utah was looking forward to the time when the prophecies of joseph, the seer, should be fulfilled, and the son of man should come:—and then, when one would have supposed that every man would have wished that his hands should be pure, was perpetrated a deed which is unparalleled in modern civilized times—a deed at which angels and men have stood aghast with horror.
bishop john d. lee,
mormon commander in the mountain meadow massacre.
john taylor,
acting president of the mormon church.
born in westmoreland, england, in 1803.
