On December 12, 1889, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued a manifesto to correct “gross misrepresentations of the doctrines, aims, and practices of the Church.” The Brethren went on to “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.” Such a practice, wrote the presiding leaders, “is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.”1
Such a declaration was probably unconvincing to virulent anti-Mormons. For some forty years Mormons had been accused of assuming the right to shed the blood of wrongdoers. Heartrending tales of innocent victims having their throats cut by remorseless Mormons had been published in books and national periodicals from the 1870s on with increasing frequency.2 A good many of these accusations pointed to the Reformation as the time when “bloodletting” reached its apex. [176] Non-Mormon writers typically wrote of blood atonement as the sine qua non of the Reformation.3 A recent biographer of Brigham Young referred to the doctrine as “the heartbeat of the Reformation.”4
This is unfortunate and untrue. Far from being the “heartbeat of the Reformation,” blood atonement was a peripheral issue, a doctrine that was often talked about but seldom or never acted upon. Brigham Young’s most vehement sermons on the subject were in the main rhetorical devices designed to frighten wayward individuals into conformity with Latter-day Saint principles.
That is not to say that Mormon leaders did not believe that some evildoers should forfeit their lives. Mormons, like Hebrews, equated sin with crime.5 Latter-day Saints believed that when temporal and spiritual power were blended together in a theocratic state, capital punishment would be carried out for various infractions.6 Aware of this belief and the strong rhetoric supporting it, many anti-Mormon writers have conveniently assumed that whenever a non-Mormon or [177] apostate was mistreated or killed in Utah territory it was a Church-inspired action.7
Such was not the case. Expectedly, as in any other human habitat, people were abused and, on occasion, killed in Utah in the 1850s. Not surprisingly, they were abused or killed in different ways and for a variety of reasons, some of which have little or nothing to do with blood atonement. In order to make some sense of the maze of conflicting statements and allegations, it is necessary to examine Mormon attitudes and actions toward “sinners” in this era.
According to the consensus of Mormon belief in the 1850s, abuse or violence could be condoned (or at least pardoned) in order to accomplish the following: (1) avenge a daughter or wife who had been wrongfully seduced; (2) remove moral blight in God’s community by harassing those that were causing the blight; (3) avenge fellow Saints such as Joseph and Hyrum Smith who had been mistreated or killed in the past; (4) permit those who committed grievous sins a chance to begin to make amends by shedding their blood. While this last act generally refers to an individual’s making a voluntary atonement, there are references which seemingly imply that one could slay a sinner in order to save his soul. It should be stressed that these were merely beliefs. Naturally, legal trappings made it impossible to carry out punitive measures as precisely as some may have liked. However, given the sensitive consciences and forgiving natures of some [178] Mormon leaders, it is questionable whether they would have allowed stern retributive measures had law permitted them. This is especially true of Brigham Young.8
The first kind of offense for which Mormons believed retribution was justifiable, that of avenging the loss of virtue of a mother or daughter, hardly qualifies as a “blood atonement” slaying. Such cases, deplorable as they might have been, were not peculiar to Mormon communities and were often recognized as “appeals to the unwritten law of the land.”9 Still, it is apparent that Latter-day Saints felt more strongly about avenging this type of misdeed than did their gentile neighbors. Apostle George A. Smith noted in a letter to his cousin in 1854 that “adultery has been punished with death by a kind of mountain common law.”10 Smith observed that “the seducer of a wife or daughter, when the facts become absolutely known, might be publicly killed by the injured party without fear of a verdict against him.” Aside from this particular feature, Smith added, “our laws are . . . like those of other states.”11 Apostate Stephen Fosdick, a resident in Utah between 1853 and 1856, recorded in his autobiography that it was an unwritten law at that time that [179] a man who seduced “his neighbor’s wife or daughter, should die and her nearest relative should kill him.”12
While “mountain common law” permitted retribution without fear of punishment, it was seldom resorted to. There were no “mountain common law” killings during the Reformation and apparently only two throughout the 1850s. Both of these occurred in 1851. Dr. J. M. Vaughan was killed by M. D. Hambleton for committing adultery with Hambleton’s wife.13 Apparently Vaughan had been guilty of similar offenses in the past and had been warned of the consequences of another sexual transgression.14 Later in the year Howard Egan shot and killed James Monroe. Monroe had seduced Egan’s wife while Egan was in California, resulting in an illegitimate child.15 At Egan’s arraignment, his lawyer, George A. Smith, appealed to “natural justice,” arguing that “the principle . . . that beats and throbs through the heart of . . . inhabitants of this territory is . . . that the man who seduces his neighbor’s wife must die.”16 Judge Snow in his charge to the jury responded: “We have no right to punish a person for a real or imaginary wrong, except with the authority of law. The safety of ourselves individually, and of society, depends [180] on the correct and faithful administration of good and wholesome laws.” Snow added that “no one ought to be punished unless that act had been declared to be penal by the law, and the punishment directed; nor until he has had an opportunity of having a fair and impartial trial.”17 Not surprisingly, Snow’s plea was disregarded and the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”18 Interestingly, neither Mrs. Hambleton nor Mrs. Egan were punished for their participation in the affairs. Women were regarded as weaker vessels and did not bear equal responsibility for sexual transgression. “In many cases women are much to blame,” Brigham once said, “but the man must always realize he is the Lord of the woman and in the end is responsible for his actions and not the woman.”19
The second type of offense for which Saints believed violence was justified can be understood only in light of Mormon eschatology. As discussed in previous chapters, Church members were convinced that they bore the responsibility of establishing the correct economic, social, and political conditions in preparation for Christ’s return. This grand design was thwarted in Missouri and Illinois, and after just a few short years in Utah territory, blotches had started to appear on the kingdom-building blueprint. Lethargy, crime, sin, gentile “contamination,” and apostate discontent were among the factors that caused consternation among Church leaders. Convinced [181] that moral blights would remain a problem as long as misdoers were treated lightly, Apostle Orson Hyde suggested the following course of action in 1853:
Suppose the shepherd should discover a wolf approaching the flock, what would he be likely to do? Why, we should suppose, if the wolf was within proper distance, that he would kill him at once with the weapons of defense which he carries, in short, that he would shoot him down, kill him on the spot. If the wolf was not within shot, we would naturally suppose he would set the dogs on him; and you are aware, I have no doubt, that these shepherd dogs have very pointed teeth, and they are very active, very sensitive to know when the flock is in danger. It is sometimes the case, perhaps, that the shepherd has not with him the necessary arms to destroy the wolf, but in such a case he would set his faithful dogs on him, and by that means accomplish his destruction . . .
. . . If you say that the Priesthood or authorities of the Church here are the shepherd, and the Church is the flock, you can make your own application of this figure. It is not at all necessary for me to do it.20
Other Mormon leaders agreed with Hyde’s proposal for a community face-lift. Two years later Heber C. Kimball gave similar advice:
We read in the Bible that the Lord told Joshua to sanctify Israel, for says He, “there is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel.” And on the morrow they sanctified themselves by stoning to death Achan the son of Carmi, who stole the wedge of gold and the Babylonish garment. They also stoned to death his wife and his children, his oxen and his asses, and burnt them with fire, together with his tent, the silver, the gold, and the garment, in the valley of Achor.
Thus all Israel put to death the transgressor, and sanctified themselves before the Lord. Would it not be an excellent course to pursue with this people, to sanctify them to the fullest extent of the word? There are individuals in these valleys who profess to be Latter-day Saints, but do they by their works make their profession honorable? No, their works and their profession are very dissimilar indeed. I think it would be an excellent thing for this people to be sanctified from such persons, and have them cleansed from our midst, by making an atonement. . . . [182]
. . . When you undertake to prune a diseased tree, you commence your operations at the root of the evil, and continue to trim it out to the top of the tree, or as far as it extends, and throw the diseased branches into the brush heap and burn them, as I used to do when I was logging, and then take the ashes and make potash and soap with them, and then cleanse away filthiness with it. This is what I call sanctification. . . .
. . . My brethren and myself have often reflected and remarked upon the happiness we should enjoy when we could fully separate ourselves from the world, from wicked men, wicked women, and wicked practices.
Previous to our coming to these valleys, I wished and prayed, that when we went to the valleys, there would not any of the wicked persons follow us, who are eternally hanging on our skirts. These are my feelings and desires now, and the earnest wishes of hundreds and thousands of men and women who dwell in these valleys.21
Kimball, like Hyde, longed for a time when the laws of God in their fullness would prevail. God’s laws, as understood by most Mormons, included those regulations which governed ancient Israel. Under the law of Moses, sins such as adultery, rape, blasphemy, homosexuality, murder, and dishonor toward parents were punishable by death.22 Most Mormons, believing that a Christian community could never be established without the adoption of a Mosaic-like legal code, looked forward with anticipation to the time when such a system would prevail.
The notion that more stringent laws were needed to create an ideal community was probably not an original idea of Brigham Young. It almost certainly was an outgrowth or offshoot of the kingdom-building design as formulated by Joseph Smith. Now that the Saints were insulated from gentile reprisals by their mountain retreat, it was [183] only to be expected that Church leaders would place a greater emphasis on enforcing stricter laws. Enough emphasis was given to this, in fact, that some Mormons probably expected Mosaic laws to be restored shortly. For example, in 1854, an editorialist in the Millennial Star noted that while the laws of the Territory of Utah were severe, “they do not approach the severity of the law of God, which will shortly be enforced upon the earth.”23 That same year S. W. Richards told a congregation of Saints in Liverpool that the time will come “when Israel is gathered, . . . that the parents will be accountable for the sin of the child. If children will not subscribe and render obedience to the law of God, parents must see to it, they must be held responsible to put that evil away.”24 “If the children obstinately persist in disobedience,” added Richards, “they must be delivered up to die . . . before the government of God can be completely established. The time is near at hand when the transgressor shall not go unpunished in the midst of Israel.”25 In 1855 an overzealous editorialist in the Millennial Star even suggested that adulterers were being punished by death in Utah.26
This emphasis on a restoration of God’s laws was accentuated during the Reformation. On January 11, 1857, Heber C. Kimball warned males who violated the chastity of Mormon women. Such men, said Kimball, “are worthy of death, and they will get it.” “That time is [184] near by, and God has spoken from the heavens,” he continued, “and when certain things are about right we shall make a public example of such characters.”27 A month later Brigham told assembled Saints that “the time has been in Israel under the law of God . . . that if man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that time is near at hand.”28 In May 1857, a Brother Ross of the Salt Lake Fifth Ward told congregated Saints at a fellowship meeting that the “time is at hand when those who commit sins worthy of death will have to be slain by the Priesthood that is directly over them.” Ross affirmed that “the woman that fights against her husband and opposes the Holy Priesthood in him—he will have to slay her himself, and also disobedient children—their own parents will have to do it.”29
Interestingly, in the early stages of the Reformation, the term “laws of God” was used frequently. Oftentimes it was used to describe the catechism questions.30 In other contexts its meaning is unclear. Occasionally it seemed to refer to a series of Mosaic-type regulations.31 Whatever the case, it is safe to assert that [185] reformational fervor increased the anticipation among some that the time was near when God’s laws would prevail. It is even conceivable, given the frequency of its use, that some thought they had reached “half-way house” status.
There is evidence that some high-spirited local leaders felt that “higher laws” prevailed in their regions. Priddy Meeks recorded that on one occasion, some Parowan residents were ready to shed his blood:
Now a greater trouble commenced by Lucy being found in the family way pregnant and she said it was John McCleves who we all thought was going to marry her as it was no secret in the two families that such was the intention. John heard that Lucy said it was his and came over to my house to find if Lucy had said so. I told him she had. And he said, “it was a cursed lie,” and appeared much agitated as though he could hardly control himself and said “where is Lucy?” “I want to see her, tell her to come here.” At that moment an animal was seen in my corn. I told him there was an animal in the corn and I must go but I would be back in a minute. And John started immediately after me. And I never spoke to him again for he went in and got Mosiah’s gun and shot himself in the head which was the beginning of trouble for me. For they charged me as being the cause of the murder and thought my blood ought to atone for it, and the plan was concocted to bring it about. But Mary Jane stood up for the truth like a faithful witness, or I don’t know how far they would have missed proving me guilty according to their testimony, although there was not a particle of truth in it. Mary jane had heard every word that had passed between John and myself.32
How widespread such incidents were is difficult to say. Certainly there is no evidence that any disobedient children, blasphemers, or adulterers were ever tried or punished in accordance with Mosaic-like laws. That does not mean, however, that some were not criticized and on occasion abused. Mormons had always been quick to censure [186] enemies. An enemy might be an outspoken apostate or a member who flagrantly violated important commandments. He might have been a rich Gentile who refused to assist the Saints, a politician who opted to ignore Latter-day Saint grievances, or a Missouri ruffian who abused Church members. In short, an enemy was anyone who hindered the progress of God’s Kingdom.
Church members found justification for censuring enemies in scripture. “And inasmuch as mine enemies come against you . . . ye shall curse them,” God told Joseph Smith in 1834. “And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies.”33 Benjamin F. Johnson remembered that “in Missouri we were taught to pray for our enemies that God would damn them, and give us power to kill them.”34 Brigham Young said in 1846 that “instead of praying for our enemies he would pray that our enemies and all dissenters might be sent to hell cross lots.”35
Church leaders continued to threaten, or more properly, attempted to frighten enemies throughout the administration of Brigham Young. In 1853, Young warned apostate Gladdenites to “keep your tongues still, lest certain destruction come upon you.”36 In this sermon he told of a dream in which he slit the throat of a murderer. “I dreamed . . . I took my large Bowie knife,” said Brigham, “and cut [187] one of their throats from ear to ear.”37 Similar statements were made during the Reformation (as indicated in previous chapters) and for years afterward. It was an era of “tough talk” and fervid rhetoric.
The “tough talk” was rarely translated into action, however. While Brigham Young and other Church leaders threatened destruction upon all enemies of the Church, there is no hard evidence that any one of them was ever destroyed. Yet Young was not above allowing riftmakers to be abused. While it is probably true that the Danites never existed in Utah Territory, it seems apparent that locally organized “trouble-shooting” groups policed various locales.38 It is also probable that Brigham, though not connected with any of them, sanctioned at least some of their doings. In this regard it is instructive that Brigham maintained an amiable association with Bill Hickman, a ruffian of questionable character.39 On one such occasion in 1860 Mayor Abraham Smoot questioned the propriety of such a relationship.
Mayor Smoot had a conversation with the President about Wm. A. Hickman, observing people see him come in and out of the office, and that leads them to suppose he is sanctioned in all he does by the President. He also observed that dogs [188] were necessary to take care of the flock, but if the Shepherd’s dogs hurt the sheep it would be time to remove them.40
Young responded that “Hickman was in the hands of the Lord and he believed he was interested in this Latter-day work.”41 Aaron Johnson, originally a resident of Springville, Utah, admitted that Brigham Young could be a “tough enforcer.” In 1902 Johnson spoke to the Nelson Guild in Nelson, British Columbia. He recorded his experience as follows:
By request, I appeared before an audience, that seemed interested, and I answered questions bearing upon Mormonism. Told my hearers what I knew about Brigham Young, and the Prophet Joseph Smith and was busy for an hour, answering questions, and explaining things concerning the Mormons.
“How about Brigham Young, and his Danites, his Destroying Angels? Didn’t Brigham and his Angels kill a lot of men in Salt Lake City during the early days there?” I was asked. I replied: “Brigham Young was not a murderer. He was a man of vision, one who did much to establish peace, and good order in Salt Lake City and elsewhere.” “Judgement to the line and righteousness to the plummet was his slogan.” Brigham Young had man around him who aided in ridding Salt Lake City of gamblers and desperados. “Your Mayor and police are doing the same here in Nelson. You are trying as Brigham did, to have a clean town.”42
It would be easy to exaggerate the amount of violence in Utah Territory, however. In an age and a land where violence was commonplace, Salt Lake City and local environs had conspicuously little.43 [189] Certainly the accusations that hundreds of individuals had to flee Utah during the Reformation are suspect. That some might have thought their lives to be in jeopardy is understandable. Undoubtedly, not everyone knew that Brigham’s threats were general, deliberate ploys to pressure dissenters into leaving the territory. “The fire of the reformation is burning many out who flee from the Territory, afraid of their lives,” wrote Hosea Stout. “The wicked flee when no one pursues,” Stout affirmed, “and so with an apostate Mormon; he always believes his life is in danger and flees accordingly.”44 George Q. Cannon, Apostle and editor of the Western Standard, was amazed that respected journalists could “give utterance to the idea . . . that the people of Utah are completely bound . . . under a tyrannical despotism, without the power to extricate themselves.”45 Church member John Jacques wrote in 1859 that all honest men were allowed to leave whenever they desired.
The idea put forth by some here, that men cannot think or act or speak freely in, or pass through, or leave this Territory without their lives being in danger is too absurd to be entertained. The fact that hundreds annually have peaceably left this Territory, from its first settlement to the present time, is ample refutation of any such assertion. True, some who attempt to leave with other people’s teams, or without liquidating their just debts, are sometimes intercepted in their flight. But if I am not mistaken, such interception is [190] not altogether illegal, and I fancy it could be easily supported by eastern precedents.46
The fact that nonconformers were made to fear for their lives (though in almost every case such fear was not grounded in reality) is regrettable. Even more regrettable, however, were the isolated instances where dissenters had reason to fear for their safety. On these occasions misguided Mormon zealots, aware of Church leaders’ fulminations against malcontents and sensitive to prevailing currents concerning a restoration of the “laws of God,” apparently felt a responsibility to carry out God’s justice. Making such individuals even more dangerous was the notion possessed by some of them that they bore an onerous burden to avenge wrongs that had been meted out to Latter-day Saints.
The origins of this “vengeance mentality” are hazy. Sampson Avard in Missouri led a group of Mormon vigilantes that spread havoc among Missourians in order to avenge the pillage of Mormon settlements.47 Clearly, the event that implanted vengeance in the minds and hearts of many Saints was the murder of Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith. Following his death it became common practice for Church members to covenant to avenge the death of prophets. Some were even [191] charged in patriarchal blessings with the responsibility of doing so. In 1854, William H. Dame of Parowan was told by Patriarch Elisha H. Groves that he would be “called to act at the head of a portion of thy brethren . . . in the redemption of Zion and the avenging of the blood of the prophets upon them that dwell in the earth.”48 Patriarch Groves also gave a blessing to Joseph Fish on January 30, 1857. Fish was told that he would “become an avenger of the blood of innocence upon them that dwell upon the earth. The angel of vengeance will be with thee; he shall go before thee, strengthen and nerve thy sinews that no power shall be able to withstand thee.”49 One of the factors that made Bishop Warren Snow so determined to root out iniquity in Manti apparently was his having covenanted to avenge Joseph’s blood.50
Illogically, many Mormons felt the entire nation bore at least some of the responsibility for the murder of Joseph and other Mormon leaders. Heber C. Kimball said in 1857 that “the whole people of the United States are under condemnation. They consented to the death of Joseph, Hyrum, David, Parley, and lots of men, women, and children.”51 Earlier in 1853 when the cornerstones for the Salt Lake Temple were laid, Brigham uttered the following: [192]
Before the Nauvoo Temple was completed, Joseph was murdered—murdered at sunlight, under the protection of the most noble government that then existed, and that now exists, on our earth. Has his blood been atoned for? No! And why? A martyr’s blood to true religion was never atoned for on our earth. No man, or nation of men, without the Priesthood, has power to make atonement for such sins. The souls of all such, since the days of Jesus, are “under the altar,” and are crying to God, day and night, for vengeance. And shall they cry in vain? God forbid! He had promised He will hear them in His own due time, and recompense a righteous reward.52
It should be emphasized that a “vengeance mentality,” distaste for dissenters, and talk of a restoration of “God’s laws,” were not by-products of the Reformation. Feelings of vengeance had existed among some Saints since 1844 but probably had intensified after 1855. Dislike and occasional abuse of dissentive individuals had taken place since Mormons were first persecuted in the 1830s. The idea that Mormon society would be governed by the “laws of God” can be found in embryonic form in the New York phase of Church history.53 But the frenzied rhetoric of the Reformation served to heighten the intensity of such feelings, creating a potentially explosive situation. It was during this type of emotional climate that the post-Reformation massacre of innocent immigrants at Mountain Meadows occurred.54 [193]
This same climate existed when three Springville residents were killed in March 1857. According to most accounts, William R. Parrish became alienated from the Church and planned to move his family to California. Before they could leave, Parrish and one of his sons were lured into an ambush and killed. Church member Duff Potter, supposedly the decoy in the scheme, was also killed.55 Although accusations and counter accusations circulated for some years, the case remained unsolved. Judge Elias Smith concluded that it was an “internal row” rather than a conspiracy that resulted in the deaths.56 Many writers and historians have been skeptical of this conclusion. Norman Furniss and Nels Anderson, authors of well-done works on Mormonism, shied away from any conclusions, but pointed out that at the very least the Church took no effective steps to investigate the possibility of Mormon duplicity.57 Interestingly, an isolated journal entry made by a Utah resident in 1857 implied that [194] some Latter-day Saints were involved. On March 19, 1857, Church member Winslow Farr wrote: “I heard some good preaching and was glad to hear that the law of God has been put in force in Springville on some men who deserved it.”58
Technically, even if Mormons were responsible for the murder of the Parrishes, it is questionable if the killings qualify as blood atonement murders.59 The term “blood atonement” has been subject to diverse definitions, and precisely delineating what was and what was not a blood atonement slaying is difficult. B. H. Roberts defined it in the following manner:
A claimed right on the part of the church to shed the blood of men guilty of heinous crimes, such as murder, adultery, and apostasy; and which, since such acts may not be done openly, and by legal authority vested in the church, then secretly, by assassination.60
According to Robert’s definition, the Parrish murders, if committed by Mormons, would meet the criteria of blood atonement killings. Certainly Brigham Young’s sermon of February 8, 1857, if torn from context, would justify taking a neighbor’s life:
All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. [195] He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never.61
The murderers of the Parrishes, then, could have killed the Parishes out of a belief that they were saving the family members’ souls. That they were killed for this reason is doubtful, however. If indeed the Parishes were killed by Mormons, it is likely they were dispatched in order to purify the environment or to avenge past wrongs. Their killers were probably unconcerned with expiation, forgiveness of sin, or the eventual fate of the Parishes souls. Applying twisted logic in a time of emotional frenzy, they probably reasoned that the Parrishes were enemies of God and harbingers of evil that needed to be eliminated.
The most orthodox conception of blood atonement holds that guilty or sinful members of the Church must voluntarily have their blood shed to atone for individual sins of a serious nature. In other words, the penalty is self-imposed.62 If vitriolic anti-Mormon [196] writers are to be believed, this type of “blood lust” was quite common during the Reformation.63 Without question, the most heartrending allegations of blood atonement are those that fit this popular concept of the doctrine. Probably the most effusive of these was recorded by Mormon apostate T. B. H. Stenhouse:
In one instance, it is related that one of the wives of a polygamist was unfaithful during his absence when he was on a mission. On his return, the “Reformation” was in full blast, and the unhappy wife believed that, from this faux pas, she was deemed to lose her claim to motherhood over the children which she had already borne; that she would be cast aside in eternity as well as in time, by her husband; that in fact, she would only “be an angel,” and with the angels; and that she could not reach the circles of the gods and goddesses unless her blood was shed. She consented to meet the penalty of her error, and while her heart was gushing with affection for her husband and her children, and her mind absorbed with faith in the doctrine of human sacrifice, she seated herself upon her husband’s knee, and after the warmest and most endearing embrace she had ever known—it was to be her last—when the warmth of his lips still lingered about her glowing cheek, with his own right hand he calmly cut her throat and sent her spirit to the keeping of the gods.64
Unfortunately Stenhouse’s narrative of blood atonement was largely the contribution of an anonymous writer. A more reliable but still highly questionable incident involving the doctrine was given by Gustive Larson in his article on the Reformation. According to a “verbally reported” account, a Mr. Johnson of Cedar City was found guilty of adultery with his stepdaughter and was sentenced to death by a bishop’s court to atone for his sin. The eyewitness claimed that [197] Johnson was in full agreement with the verdict and went to his grave confident that his sin had been atoned for and his salvation had been secured.65
Such incidents are difficult to substantiate. If they did occur, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action in a remote sector. There were Saints, aware of blood utterances and concerned about the gravity of their sins, that were willing to “spill their blood” to atone for their wrongdoings.66 However, the actuality of such occurrences during the time of Reformation is highly suspect. In regard to Stenhouse’s tale, it is unlikely that a woman, being the “weaker vessel,” would have been so severely punished. Moreover, both alleged killings would have been in defiance of Brigham’s decree that the Reformation was a time of forgiveness.67 There is ample evidence that repentant sinners, including sexual transgressors, were fully pardoned during the Reformation.68 This message was disseminated to Mormon leaders in outlying environs. In Cedar City, where Mr. Johnson [198] reportedly was executed, stake president Isaac Haight had informed residents on October 19, 1856, that “all shall have the opportunity of repenting and reforming and of being baptized once more for the remission of our sins.”69 Haight also received specific instruction from Young to forgive adulterers.70
In short, the Reformation was not a time of blood atonement. That Brigham Young and other Church leaders believed it to be an inspired doctrine is true. That Church leaders advocated its instigation is a matter of record. Furthermore, it is apparent that some Mormons, possibly taking their cue from the inflammatory remarks of Church leaders, engaged in abusive and uncharitable and, perhaps, even violent acts. The preponderance of evidence, however, suggests that the motives behind such actions had little connection with the doctrine of blood atonement. [199]
