The Reformation

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Hello everybody,

I’ve started a new thread about the Mountain Meadows Massacre because I felt the old one has gone in many directions and as lost its focus.

I also felt it has focused too much on blood atonement, when in fact blood atonement is only one piece of a greater whole. Therefore, I thought I would try and explain what is called “The Reformation.” Even though this post is long, there‘s so much more to say, so I hope I chose my excerpts wisely. The goal is for you to understand the impact of the Reformation, because if you can do that, you’ll be better able to understand how the MMM could have happened. (I've inserted paragraph returns to make the text more readable.)

Famine and hard times in Utah in the mid-1850s convinced Church leaders that God was not pleased with the state of the Kingdom. Consequently, they initiated a program of rebaptism, rededication, and retrenchment among the Saints between 1856 and 1857. Jedediah Grant exerted much influence during this period, helping to convince members to change and repent. It was a short period of intense religious zealotry which reinforced the commitment of "true" Mormons against outsiders and apostates.

This brief period was called “The Reformation,” and when trying to comprehend the complex reasons for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, you have to include this fanatic, albeit very brief period of Mormon history.

By early 1856 Brigham Young felt the Saints had lost their commitment to righteousness and to the kingdom. Only this could explain the dismal conditions afflicting the territory. “Instead of the smooth, beautiful, sweet, still, silver-velvet-lipped preaching,” he said, “you should have sermons like peals of thunder, and perhaps we can then get the scales from our eyes.”

From “Blood of the Prophets, pp. 49-51:

“Do you know that I have my the threads strings all through the Territory that I may know what individuals do”? Young asked, referring to his highly effective intelligence network. “If you do not pursue a righteous course, we will separate you from the Church..” Young encouraged bishops and home teachers to pry into the most intimate details of their flock’s lives.

“Do not let there be one place in your wards, about which you are uniformed,” he directed. The time was “fast approaching when words and grass will be laid aside, and sterner methods adopted to clear the moral atmosphere of Utah.”

Young called for “a reformation in the midst of this people.” “We need a thorough reform, for I know that very many are in a dozy condition with regard to their region, . . . But now it is time to awake, before the time of burning.”

The desperate poverty and great faith of the Mormon people, coupled with Young’s rousing exhortations, created an orgy of religious extremism known as the Reformation.

Jedediah Grant, Brigham Young’s cadaverous but charismatic second counselor, was the driving force behind the Reformation. . . . Grant toured Utah’s northern settlements during September 1856. His impassioned sermons prayed that “all those who did not feel to do right might have their way opened to leave this people and Territory.” He called for loyal Saints to renew their commitment to the church through rebaptism, and congregations unanimously rose to the challenge.

The apostle carried his revival to Farmington, where “the whole assembly rose with a sudden ruse” to approve his measures. The next day 406 reformed sinners were baptized. The fiery apostle called for the Saints “to be baptized and washed clean from your sins, from your backslidings, from your apostasies, from your filthiness, from your lying, from your swearing, from your lusts, and from everything that is evil.”

. . . .

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Reformation was the Mormon leadership’s obsession with blood. Their rhetoric dripped with sanguine imagery , and their Old Testament theology incorporated the dark fascination in a perplexing doctrine known as blood atonement. Strictly interpreted, the doctrine seems to have applied only to believing Mormons, but it led to the widespread belief that the LDS church shed the blood of apostates “as an atonement for their sins.”

. . . .

Modern Mormon authorities insist blood atonement was a “rhetorical device” and “had never been practiced by the church at any time,” but historian Juanita Brooks concluded that blood atonement was “a literal and terrible reality, Brigham Young advocated and preached it without compromise.” If a Mormon committed an unpardonable sin, Young asked early in 1857, “will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?” He knew hundreds of people who could have been saved “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.,” If a man wanted salvation and it was “necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he might be saved, spill it.” That, said the prophet, was the way to love mankind. It was strong doctrine, to cut “people off the earth,” he conceded, “but it is to save them, not to destroy them.” Sinners should “beg of their brethren to shed their blood.”

The Saints had a “right to kill a sinner to save him, when he commits those sins that can only be atoned for by shedding his blood,” Jedediah Grant insisted. He claimed “We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him.” At the beginning of the Reformation, Grant advised sinners to ask Brigham Young “to appoint a committee to attend to their case, and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood.” We have those amongst us, he said, “that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye.”

John D. Lee’s confessions reflect how the doctrine was interpreted--and practiced--in southern Utah in the 1850s. He linked blood atonement to obedience and wrote that during the Reformation everyone in Utah believed in it. “It was taught by leaders and believed by the people that the Priesthood were inspired and could not give a wrong order.”

The Reformation burned especially bright in zealous southern Utah. “Everyone was re-baptized.” recalled Parowan schoolteacher Joseph Fish, “and all who wished to be Saints consecrated or deeded their property to the President of the Church.” The night of their return from conference in October 1856, William Dame and Isaac Haight “spoke by the Holy Spirit, and the congregation was cut to the heart. It was sad the people were all on the road to hell, from the highest to the lowest.” They call for the entire stake to be baptized for the last time with water. The southern Saints learned that “the dividing line between the righteous and the wicked was now drawn.”

--------------------------------------------

The following describes the traveling of George A. Smith, another fiery orator, who riled up the Saints on his way down south. I believe he played a pivotal role in raising the emotions of the Saints in southern Utah with his incendiary speech.

From the Contributions of George A. Smith to the Establishment of the Mormon Society in the Territory of Utah, BYU Online Collection

George A. Smith joined the mobilization exercises. His sermons were understandably angry, like those of other leaders. Speaking in the tabernacle on August 2, he declared:

“Under these circumstances, as big a coward as I am, I would say what I pleased; and for one thing I would say that every man that had anything to do with such a filthy, unconstitutional affair was a damned scoundrel. . . . If I had the command of thunder and lightening, I would never let one of the damned scoundrels get here alive.

“I have heretofore said but very little about the Gentiles; but I have heard all that Drummond has said, and I have read all of his lying, infamous letters, and although I have such but little, I think a heap. You must know that I love my friends, and God Almighty knows that I do hate my enemies. There have been men, and women, and children enough who have died through the oppression and tyranny of our enemies to damn any nation under heaven; and now a nation of 25,000,000 of people must exercise its wealth in violation of its own principles and the rights guaranteed by the blood of their fathers.”

To understand sermons such as this, one must attempt to imagine the passionate indignation that filled the hearts of the saints. Their memories were awakened to the dark days of the Missouri and Illinois persecutions--scenes of suffering, burning, mob-militias, and indifferent civil authorities. Appearing current in the Deseret News was George A.’s history of the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. He said others were again reminded of those frightening times. Now a hostile force was on its way to Utah. Not knowing the army’s objectives, the saints readily believed the threatening stories brought back by their spies, saying they had overhead solders boast of their plan to plunder the Mormon settlements and ravish their women. They learned that many in the East were accepting the lurid tales circulated by Drummond and Stiles.

Adding to their agitated emotion state was a large-scale religious revival then taking place known as the “Mormon Reformation.” Wilford Woodruff recorded that he had never such strong sermons. Threats of blood atonement issued from the pulpit, plural marriages was promoted, and Church members every where re-baptized for the renewal of the covenants. Men like William Dame, a prominent ecclesiastical leader from Parowan and participant in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, returned form October conference in 185t6 preaching the “Reformation” with great vigor. “The time we have prayed for so long as come,” he told his flock in Parowan. “I testify that the line is draw. . . . Some that sinned grievous sins are offering their lives at the feet of the prophets as an explanation of them.”

Brother Heber C. Kimball, hate continued, told the police “to guard the flock from the wolves; if they can’t do it Bishops you can. If the Bishop finds a men meddling with another man’s wife--if he finds me meddling with another’s man’s wife; Bishop shed my blood; if you won’t I will require my blood at your hands. This is a sample for all in Parowan.”

--------------------------------------

I’m going to stop for now. I just wanted to give you an idea of what was being preached to the congregations during the Reformation. It created an outrageous zeal against outsiders, even members of the church who did not want to continue to live under such intense scrutiny and fervor.

But, it’s important to highlight, the Reformation only lasted two-years, before it burned out. One positive result is the concept of home teachers and visiting teachers came from it.

I have talked much about blood atonement and the part it played in the MMM. Blood atonement was an integral part of the Reformation, but again, it was short-lived.

After the movement died out, it was not certainly not preached, though it did become something of an unspoken “doctrine” for those who had committed heinous crimes.

For example, Mark Hofmann’s father begged him to let himself be executed by firing squad to let his blood be spilled, believing he would not be otherwise forgiven. On another board I frequent, an older member of the church thought it was still doctrine, and was surprised when a number of members corrected her.

Anyway, hopefully this information on the Reformation will give you some further insight into the MMM. Again, it’s still only one piece of the puzzle, but a significant one.

Emma

[pushka]

Emma, thanks for contributing this post. I found it very interesting and am surprised that nobody else has said so too! :)

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Emma, thanks for contributing this post. I found it very interesting and am surprised that nobody else has said so too! :)

Hi Pushka!

Somebody read this! I'm so happy!

I wrote it so long ago, and it's so long, and probably boring, I didn't think anyone was interested. Now, it was worth it. :)

Do you feel you better understand the climate the people who committed the murders of the MMM lived in?

Emma

[Jason]

What exactly have you contributed here that has not been discussed on the other thread? We have the reformation, blood atonement and rebaptism (the "for sins" kind not rebaptism for health.)

You needed your own thread to boost your ego?

[Guest Yediyd]

What exactly have you contributed here that has not been discussed on the other thread? We have the reformation, blood atonement and rebaptism (the "for sins" kind not rebaptism for health.)

You needed your own thread to boost your ego?

Every post that Emma puts up here is backed by research and information...not insults and character assasination. Who is boosting who's ego?

Why don't you back up your claims instead of attacking the person who does?

She is obviously very well read and informed, are you threatened by that?

Stick to the topic and stop with the personal attacks, already!!!! Yeeesh!!!!!

[Gabelma]

<div class='quotemain'>

Emma, thanks for contributing this post. I found it very interesting and am surprised that nobody else has said so too! :)

Hi Pushka!

Somebody read this! I'm so happy!

I wrote it so long ago, and it's so long, and probably boring, I didn't think anyone was interested. Now, it was worth it. :)

Do you feel you better understand the climate the people who committed the murders of the MMM lived in?

Emma

Just read it too - I was lucky the BBC did a documentary on the American West when I was newly baptised, and it did a piece on the Mormons, it covered this period in LDS history in almost the same way you have. I think its good to see information on the LDS church presented in a balanced light too often its either sugar coated or sensational - going immediatly from one version to the other must be very difficult to take

Charley

[Jason]

Every post that Emma puts up here is backed by research and information...not insults and character assasination. Who is boosting who's ego?

That's where you are wrong. I called her out for references after hearing " that's not it" more times than I can count. So she posts a new thread to provide us with some "new" insight, and only manages to repeat everything that's been said before. Reformation, Rebaptism, Blood Atonement.

Im the one who pointed out Blood atonement and the Oath of Vengeance. The two foundational teachings that were used as justification for MM.

The Reformation was not just about BA and the Oath. Rebaptism was a part of the reformation, but was only a side not for MM.

She is obviously very well read and informed, are you threatened by that?

If anything I've shown that "she" has read only one book which critizes the most famous authors on this subject over the last fifty years. I've read Stegner, Brooks, etc. She's read one book about what they wrote.

Big difference.

Stick to the topic and stop with the personal attacks, already!!!! Yeeesh!!!!!

The only reason this got personal is because "Emma" decided to make herself an authority by making out that we just didn't "get" it. When I got tired of it an asked for references, she gives us one book. That's it, that's apparently all she knows is what one author had to say while criticing the best Mormon history has produced.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

Every post that Emma puts up here is backed by research and information...not insults and character assasination. Who is boosting who's ego?

That's where you are wrong. I called her out for references after hearing " that's not it" more times than I can count. So she posts a new thread to provide us with some "new" insight, and only manages to repeat everything that's been said before. Reformation, Rebaptism, Blood Atonement.

Im the one who pointed out Blood atonement and the Oath of Vengeance. The two foundational teachings that were used as justification for MM.

The Reformation was not just about BA and the Oath. Rebaptism was a part of the reformation, but was only a side not for MM.

She is obviously very well read and informed, are you threatened by that?

If anything I've shown that "she" has read only one book which critizes the most famous authors on this subject over the last fifty years. I've read Stegner, Brooks, etc. She's read one book about what they wrote.

Big difference.

Stick to the topic and stop with the personal attacks, already!!!! Yeeesh!!!!!

The only reason this got personal is because "Emma" decided to make herself an authority by making out that we just didn't "get" it. When I got tired of it an asked for references, she gives us one book. That's it, that's apparently all she knows is what one author had to say while criticing the best Mormon history has produced.

I'm not as well read as you or Emma, so I can't be the judge of who is more knowledgable...I only saw you resort to personal attacks which nagated your credibilty.

BTW...I dissagree with both of you on different issues...but I respect the intellegence that both of you display and I look forward to reading your post...whether I agree or dissagree...but when you start personally attacking another...I lose that respect.

[Jason]

I'm not as well read as you or Emma, so I can't be the judge of who is more knowledgable...I only saw you resort to personal attacks which nagated your credibilty.

I was responding to her "attack" of the rest of us for not getting the so-called big picture. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, it was meant to ask her for her evidence.

Which I found wanting, but that's not the point.

So if "she" wants to ignore me, no big loss.

[CrimsonKairos]

While I disagree with Jason on many, many things ( ), he knows his stuff and has read alot. I respect his intelligence and scholarship, and it wouldn't hurt for Emma to provide quotes from some of the other authors Jason mentions. She seems well-read and intelligent too, but I agree, one book alone is not enough to categorically say what was and was not behind the MMM.

[Guest Yediyd]

While I disagree with Jason on many, many things ( ), he knows his stuff and has read alot. I respect his intelligence and scholarship, and it wouldn't hurt for Emma to provide quotes from some of the other authors Jason mentions. She seems well-read and intelligent too, but I agree, one book alone is not enough to categorically say what was and was not behind the MMM.

I can honestly say that I am not as read as either of them. I respect both of them and find them to be enlightening and intelligent. I was just offended by the personal attacks...but I see Jason's point, too.

[Jason]

While I disagree with Jason on many, many things ( ), he knows his stuff and has read alot. I respect his intelligence and scholarship, and it wouldn't hurt for Emma to provide quotes from some of the other authors Jason mentions. She seems well-read and intelligent too, but I agree, one book alone is not enough to categorically say what was and was not behind the MMM.

You're my boy BLUE....you're my boy!

[CrimsonKairos]

[pushka]

Emma, I recall you mentioning your interest in church history, and your offer to post more information if people wanted it. I was happy to read your OP and to learn from it.

I'm also happy to read others' posts from different sources.

I don't see this as an ego trip for Emma, just a wish to share knowledge. Thanks Emma. :)

[vinny15]

Hey Emma. I loved all of that. Thankyou very much. I have a question that I cannot find myself. Was anyone actually given the death penalty in the mormon theocracy via blood atonement. From my own research I see a resounding no, but I'd like to know if anyone was killed that way.

[Guest Yediyd]

Hey Emma. I loved all of that. Thankyou very much. I have a question that I cannot find myself. Was anyone actually given the death penalty in the mormon theocracy via blood atonement. From my own research I see a resounding no, but I'd like to know if anyone was killed that way.

I would be interested in the answer to this question as well.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

<div class='quotemain'>

Hey Emma. I loved all of that. Thankyou very much. I have a question that I cannot find myself. Was anyone actually given the death penalty in the mormon theocracy via blood atonement. From my own research I see a resounding no, but I'd like to know if anyone was killed that way.

I would be interested in the answer to this question as well.

If you’re talking about the theocracy of Brigham Young’s during the 1800’s, then there’s the story of William Parrish.

In the spring of 1857, William R. Parrish, of Springville, Utah, had lost his testimony and was planning on moving to California. He knew this was very dangerous, because it was the height of The Reformation, which included the doctrine of Blood Atonement. Additionally, there was zero tolerance for anyone who did not renew their covenants. It was especially dangerous for anyone who wanted to leave the territory, for that meant they would go to the Gentiles and tell of the inner workings of the Saints.

Anyway, word of Parrish’s plans to leave did get out. First his horses were stolen, which delayed his escape. Next the bishop of his ward and some fellow church members visited him, pretending to side with him. Instead, they murdered him, killing him with a knife.

If you’re asking if anyone was killed in modern times by capital punishment via blood atonement, I only know of one case, and it’s a big maybe. There may be others, but I don’t know of them.

That’s the case of Gary Gilmore, who shot and killed two people in Provo, Utah on July 20, 1976. He was tried and convicted, and refused any appeals; he wanted to be executed. He had the option of hanging or being shot, and he chose to be shot.

Gary’s mother was raised in a Mormon household, but she left it to be with Gary’s father. Gary was raised in an extremely abusive home, and from late childhood on was in and out of jail. When released in March of 1976 from prison he went to live with Mormon relatives in Provo, Utah. It was the following July that he committed the murders.

His brother Mikal Gilmore, a writer for Rolling Stone, is the one who believes Gary chose the firing squad because of blood atonement. He says Gary had enjoyed his time with his Mormon relatives, especially his uncle and his cousin. He says that, combined with his guilt over the murders, persuaded him the firing squad was the right thing to do, so he would have the opportunity for blood atonement.

This is very controversial and I’m writing this from memory, as I read Mikal's book years ago. Others, especially LDS members, do not believe blood atonement had anything to do with Gary’s decision.

So there you have it.

Emma

Edit: I wrote the paragraph on the Parrish/Potter murders quite a while ago. I cannot find the reference where it says his bishop was involved. All I can find is wording such as "the Hierachy of Springville" committed the murders. So I retract the part where I wrote the bishop and fellow church members were the murderers. Emma

[CrimsonKairos]

Where's the documentation on this Parrish case?

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Where's the documentation on this Parrish case?

The paragraph referring to William Parrish is on page 73.

William Parrish Utah HIstory Quarterly Article

Emma

Edited to change link (previously gave an old one)

Edited to add: I wrote the paragraph about the Potter/Parrish murders a while ago and can't find my reference that says his bishop was involved. All I can find are references that say something like "the Hieratrchy of Springville" were involved. So I retract my coment that the bishop and fellow church members commited the murders.

[vinny15]

Wow is there any possiblity this is false? If there isnt than those men that killed him will surely have to answer to God, unless william persish killed someone in wich case that would be the death penalty.

??