The reformative momentum, in large part a product of Jedediah Grant’s bombastic ministry, continued through December, 1856. Reform became the order of the day, and any activity which would cause the Saints to lose sight of reform was terminated. There was no dancing, theatre, or entertainment of any kind.1 The Polysophical Society, an organization designed to promote culture and learning, discontinued meeting. Grant had called the society a “stink in his nostrils,” and observed that there was an adulterous spirit in it.2
The preaching continued to be fierce, especially in private priesthood meetings. At a seventies meeting held on December 22, 1856, Judge George Stiles was cut off for adultery. This action seemed to prompt the brethren to threaten those who violated Mormon codes of chastity. Wilford Woodruff declared that the sword should be drawn for sexual offenders, and Lorenzo Snow observed that the Saints would see the day when the adulterer could not leave the congregation alive. Franklin Richards asked the apostles and seventies why they had been asleep for so long, and quorum presidents were [100] urged to wake up or resign.3 Woodruff later recorded in his journal that the Spirit there was “like fire shut up in our bones.”4
The next day Woodruff and Heber C. Kimball addressed the legislative council. According to Woodruff, Kimball felt feeble, but when he began to talk, “the power of God came upon him and he spoke for an hour.”5 Woodruff followed, and after his remarks, the members of the House “spoke until sundown and the House was filled with the spirit of God almost to the consuming of our flesh and many things were revealed which were marvelous.”6 In the evening a bishops’ meeting was held at which Woodruff remarked that “he with the rest of the twelve intended to be after every quorum, until the fire of God should burn so hot, as to consume all the iniquity that lurks in our midst.”7 After alternately rebuking, threatening, and praising the bishops, Woodruff concluded the meeting by telling Bishop Edward Hunter that “the spirit of Almighty God shall rest upon him, and his face shall shine.”8 It was little wonder that Wilford wrote in his journal that evening that he “had never spent such a day and night in Israel.”9 [101]
The Pentecostal period culminated on December 30 when the legislature met. Heber C. Kimball made it known at the outset that no business would be transacted until reform took place.10 All members and officers of the legislature who had not been rebaptized previously received the ordinance. Thirty-seven home missionaries were also rebaptized at this time.11 Later Brigham spoke, rejoicing at the progress that had been made and expressing gratitude that the Twelve had received the spirit. “I have rested more in two months,” he said, “than in ten years before.”12
While Brigham felt good about the overall course of reform, some problems had arisen. As with many reformation movements, the well-intended enthusiasm and fervency resulted in emotional excesses, improprieties, and in some cases bitterness. By December, 1856, Church leaders were concerned about two recurring problems: (1) the authority conflicts between home missionaries and bishops, and (2) the irritation and resentment caused by overzealous home missionaries, bishops, and teachers who resorted to revivalistic ploys and who were often less than tactful when administering the catechism.
Not surprisingly, soon after the home missionaries began preaching in their assigned wards, there arose reports of contention between them and the respective ward bishops. As early as November 23, [102] Wilford Woodruff lamented that there should be any question between missionaries and bishops as to which had more authority.13 Some of the potential conflicts were probably alleviated when it was decided in early December to have missionaries and bishops meet together, but occasional friction was evident through January.14 Levi Savage, a home missionary, was released because of a disagreement with a bishop,15 and a serious rift between missionaries and ward leaders took place in the Salt Lake Thirteenth Ward.16 As late as January 20, 1857, Orson Hyde answered the frequently raised question of how far a missionary’s jurisdiction extended by telling assembled bishops and missionaries that “the spirit of God will teach you in every particular instance, just how far your authority extends.”17
Well-meaning missionaries, bishops, and teachers often brought about difficulties by overzealousness and lack of sensitivity. Presiding Bishop Edward Hunter knew of “many instances when teachers without wisdom or the Spirit of God, have gone into families and raised a spirit of opposition and rebellion.”18 “Some teachers,” observed Hunter, “go for no other purpose than to find out iniquity.”19 [103] Wilford Woodruff warned missionaries, bishops, and teachers that “when you knock the people in the head in order to wake them, do not . . . pound them until you kill them.” “It is not necessary,” added Woodruff, “to jump or shout and stomp off 50¢ worth of shoe leather in order to get the people to wake up or reform but it is a straightforward business matter.”20
The administration of the catechism was a particularly sensitive problem. It would appear initially that at least in some areas it was administered publicly and the confession that followed was likewise public.21 Later, though, teachers and home missionaries went to individual homes and catechized the families as units. This naturally led to embarrassing moments. In his autobiography, James Allen Browning wrote of “scathing investigations” which were humiliating.22 Hannah Topfield King remembered the catechizing as a painful ordeal.
How well I remember them coming to our house. There was no one at home but Tom Owen and me. They asked if I desired to be questioned in a separate room. I said no, and smiling at Tom I asked him if he did. Poor boy, he was but 16, he looked as guileless as a child, and said no. They then proceeded with me. It began, Have you committed murder, ditto, ditto—adultery? ditto—ditto, robbery?—spoken slander of your neighbor?—Broken down your neighbor’s fences?—Brought your children up in principles of righteousness, etc. It was over a foot in length! Blessed were those who could answer in innocence. But I do believe many in those times were frightened into paying and confessing sins they never committed. It was a [104] fearful time for all. Whether it did good or was instituted by the Spirit of God is not for me to judge. I leave an open verdict in my heart of hearts. Only I know it was [a] fearful ordeal, and fear is a slavish passion and is not begotten by the spirit of God.23
Church leaders soon realized that discomfiting situations could be eliminated by catechizing individuals separately. Heber C. Kimball advised those administering the catechism to question priesthood holders and cut off those who deserved to be severed from the Church. “Do not call in the females when catechising the males,” said Heber, “but when you have done with them, then call the females together and talk to them and show them their duty.” Kimball stressed the importance of trimming “up the Wards in a gentle manner, without making such an ungodly stink,” and without exposing the brethren as Ham did his father Noah.”24 Two weeks later Wilford Woodruff suggested streamlining catechismal procedures even further.
With regard to catechizing by those in families, I would prefer to adopt a uniform system. In this we go into a family and ask the man—he has half a dozen wives and twenty children—you ask that man, “are you willing to be catechised together?” The man, feeling that perhaps that he has not done anything he is afraid to have his wives know [agrees]. Perhaps one of his wives may be guilty of adultery or stealing and the rest of the family not guilty. The moment that woman says she wants to be catechised alone, the whole rest of the family are suspicious of it. You will see that [if] you go into a family [and] a woman has been guilty of committing adultery, the moment that the man knows that, it is a dagger to his heart all the days of his life[. It is] so with a woman, let her know that her [105] husband has been guilty of adultery—don’t you see you destroy families the moment you pursue that course?25
The change in questioning procedures was but one area of Reformation refinement. Actually in the initial stages of reform there were very few specific guidelines. But as problems arose and were solved, reformational objectives became more clearly delineated. An example of a casual trend that became a definite direction had to do with the treatment that was meted out to recalcitrant members and Gentiles. Initially, spiritual misfits were criticized and even harassed, but there was rarely any overt attempt to root them out. It gradually became clear to Church leaders, however, that total community purity would never become a reality until all polluting elements were removed. Thus a concerted effort was made to harass incorrigibles to the point they would leave the territory. Generally the harassment was vocal, but occasionally physical abuse was deemed necessary.
Just how much effect the verbal threats had is difficult to determine. Certainly they were given with sufficient frequency and graphicness to have frightened some. In addition to the oft-repeated threat to “cleanse the inside of the platter,” Heber C. Kimball warned “adulterers, thieves, liars, covenant breakers and etc., that the time was near at hand when men would be made Eunuchs to stop their increase [106] as their seed was obnoctious [sic] and would not be allowed to propagate.”26
One of the comparatively few instances of actual violence occurred when Henry Jarvis incurred the wrath of the Brethren.27 On November 8, Brigham Young and the Council voted “that the indignation of the Marshall of City rest upon Henry Jarvis from this time forth.” After the vote, Heber C. Kimball said, “Hear it Oh Ye Heavens and execute it upon the earth O ye man of God.”28 On January 13, 1857, Jarvis’s windows of his house were broken in, his furniture destroyed and his home set afire.29 Within that same month two houses of ill-repute were unroofed and partially destroyed, and Frank Pullin’s barrels of beer were broken into and split.30
It should be stressed, however, that physical abuse was used sparingly. For one thing, Church leaders were effective in getting the vast majority of the populace to reform. The two major methods used by Church leaders to bring this about, public rebukes and checklist visits of missionaries, have already been discussed and are a well-known part of the Reformation era. What is less known is [107] that other means, more subtle but still ever-present, were also deployed by the presiding leaders of the Church to hasten improvement.
One such means was the frequently given warning that if the people did not reform, they would be left without their leaders and lose the higher (Melchizedek) priesthood. Brigham made it known that the sins and lethargic ways of the Saints had been an inexorable burden on him, one that could not be borne much longer. Jedediah Grant had sensed this and in trying to share the burden of responsibility died of fatigue.31 Fortunately, the improvement in community morals and righteousness as a result of the Reformation had alleviated much of the burden.32 Any future deviation, however, could result in the Saints being stripped of their leadership and priesthood.33 On December 28, 1856, Wilford Woodruff told assembled Saints at the Tabernacle that “the First Presidency . . . have retired from our midst because the people will not do as they are told—that is they withdrew themselves from the people for the present.”34 The members were warned that the higher priesthood would depart into the wilderness among either the Lamanites or the Ten Tribes, and the Saints would be left with the Aaronic (lower) Priesthood and the law of [108] carnal commandments.35 The absence of Brigham Young from all public services in December and January was probably intended to cause the Saints to ponder the potentiality of such an occurrence.
Perhaps the greatest motivation to reform was provided by the declaration that the Reformation was a time of mercy and forgiveness, a period when nearly all former sins could be remitted. Oddly enough, this concept seemed to run counter to the blood atonement assertions (that is, the idea that some of the Saints had committed such grievous sins that only the shedding of their own blood could absolve them), but it was in fact a dominant theme of the Reformation.
It was on November 9, 1856, at a meeting of seventies, that Brigham Young first announced that all sins would be forgiven. Wilford Woodruff recorded Young’s declaration and his response as follows:
[President Brigham Young] promised the people in the name of Jesus Christ if they would repent and turn from their sins from that hour all of their sins should be forgiven them and not remembered against them no more forever either on Earth or in Heaven. O what joy this should give the people for they have nearly sinned more or less.36
Young’s correspondence during this era furnishes abundant evidence that the Reformation was a time of forgiveness. He instructed Bishop Tarleton Lewis to tell his congregation that “all [109] manner of sin, save it be the sin against the Holy Ghost,” were forgiven.37 On October 29, 1856, Young received a letter from stake president Isaac Haight of Cedar City. A local man had just seen Haight and confessed that he had some time before “had connexion” with a young lady that he later married. Previous to this he had taken out his endowments. Haight remarked that the individual was sorry and was willing to do anything to obtain forgiveness and be saved, even to the point of having his own blood shed. Haight wondered what course of action should be pursued.38 Young replied:
This time, in the name of the Lord remission and pardon, even of Adultery, are promised to all that truly repent, confess, forsake their sins, and make restitution, when necessary, then ever after live their religion, be on the Lord’s side and do right. To all such people you may bless and encourage in their journey through life.39
Brigham did not even care to know the names of the adulterers. When Beaver City bishop Philo T. Farnsworth wrote Young desiring to know “whether you wish to know about cases of adultery and if so whether those persons who are guilty will have to go before you,” Young replied that he did not wish to “know the names nor the errors of those who are called saints.” “Let it suffice,” said Brigham, “that [110] they confess and forsake their sins and live nearer to the Lord than they have hitherto done.”40
While stressing that the Reformation was a time of mercy, Church leaders also made it plain that this was temporary, that future sins would not be pardoned so easily. Franklin D. Richards charged home missionaries with the responsibility of making people aware of this.
I do not think you will see this kingdom settle back and go to sleep; if it does we may take our knapsacks and go into the wilderness. The Lord will not wait upon this people any longer— if they go to sleep again, you will see judgement laid to the line, and justice will walk up and mercy will stand right back. . . . If you see a man that will confess his sins, he should feel the impression upon him that that must be the last time; if he does not, he will inherit sorrow unto himself, and will not get off as easily as he has. . . . Give them to understand if they are ever catechised hereafter it will be from the winter of 1856–57, and if they commit sins hereafter they will be brought to judgment, and it will be laid to the line and there will not be the mercy that is now shown.41
The Reformation, then, became a watershed as far as forgiveness of sins was concerned. Probably never before in the history of the Church were serious sins remitted so painlessly. For those who confessed their transgressions and expressed a willingness to do better there was no court action, no period of probation or suspension. Rarely, the Saints were told, had God been so merciful. As Lorenzo Brown was given to understand: [111]
It appears that we have the privilege of our sins being forgiven inasmuch as we make restitution to those we have injured and then renew our covenants before God. . . . Our sins are looked upon as the sins of ignorance, and the God of Heaven in His infinite goodness is pleased to pass by them without an atonement, but from this time forward all sins have to be atoned for.42
There was still another factor that became a stimulus for reform. It was the ever-growing belief that the Reformation was a prelude to an event or events of millennial significance. This belief, of course, was not widespread in the early stages of reform. But as enthusiasm and emotion peaked, as a majority of Saints became more diligent in their religious practices, the notion that the Reformation was a preparatory period for events of a portentous nature gained currency. “It is a momentous time in Israel,” said Wilford Woodruff, “and it is necessary for this reformation in order to have the people prepared for the great things of God which are coming upon the earth.”43 Leaders such as Daniel H. Wells and Heber C. Kimball related dreams in which they saw titanic struggles, struggles that only the valiant would be able to endure.44 Other [112] Saints preached that “the day was not far distant when Joseph and Hyrum would be with this people.”45
There were, then, numerous factors that motivated Latter-day Saints to change. Spirited declarations and regular catechismal visits of missionaries prompted many to reform. In addition, the threatened loss of priesthood leadership, the promised absolution of sins, and the conviction that cataclysmic events were near caused others to alter their life-styles.
It was a tumultuous time and nearly every Saint was affected. Most faithful Mormons, from apostle to lay member, felt that their spiritual fiber was lacking, that they must repent of their frivolous or sinful ways to find their way into God’s graces. Apostles Hyde, Woodruff, and Snow even offered to surrender their apostleships if Brigham could find more qualified men.46 Woodruff, who had an especially sensitive conscience, told of holding a meeting with his family where he confessed his own faults and pointed out the shortcomings of individual family members.47 John Brown of Utah County noted that he met with his family, talked candidly of faults and [113] shortcomings, and covenanted from that time forth to live a more perfect life.48 Perhaps a typical reaction was that of Benjamin F. Johnson. “In my own heart,” declared Johnson, “when lit by the candle of the Lord I found more of evil than I wished to carry, and I laid all down at the feet of the Lord . . . and in the waters of baptism and repentance sought to live a higher and more perfect life.”49
There were other evidences of spiritual renewal, some of a tangible nature. Church attendance increased dramatically, and often people had to be turned away.50 Tithing and free-will offerings increased significantly.51 The correspondence to Brigham Young included a significant number of inquiries about individual sins and there was a virtual deluge of letters asking for permission to marry plural wives.52 In fact, there were times when Brigham’s time was [114] almost totally taken up with administering endowments and marrying couples (often plurally).53
As indicated in a previous chapter, the increase in polygamy during the Reformation is probably the best attestation to the ability of Church leaders to convince the general membership to live a particular doctrine. In 1856 and 1857 plural marriage skyrocketed to levels it never before or after reached. Stan Ivins concluded that there were sixty-five percent more plural marriages during this period than any other two-year span.54
Indeed, eligible ladies were probably initially taken off guard by the sudden attention given them. Single women arriving on the handcart migrations were married in short order, a fact that Brigham wanted circulated in England to encourage even more to come.55 Even youthful teens were married quickly. Wilford Woodruff in a letter to George A. Smith noted that “all are trying to get wives, until there is hardly a girl 14 years old in Utah, but what is married, or just going to be.”56 Home missionary William Willes recorded that at this time it was all the rage for men to marry plural wives,”57 [115] while Lorenzo Brown observed that “polygamy seems to be the spirit of the times, so much so that there seems to be no marriageable girls in the community.”58 A frustrated Fillmore resident asked Brigham for permission to go on a mission to the East in the hopes of finding additional wives. Evidently the paucity of eligible females in Fillmore, fifty-six single men as opposed to four single women, was the motivating factor.59 Interestingly, Ellen Spencer Clawson, a Salt Lake City resident, wrote that many Mormon women willingly entered into the practice. “The girls don’t think of refusing, but take the first one that asks them,” wrote Ellen. “I think the hand of the Lord must be in it for their natures seem to be entirely changed.”60
Expectedly, the emphasis on plural marriage led to some abuses, and guidelines had to be established. Mormon males were cautioned not to win the affection of a neighbor’s daughter without having her parents’ consent.61 Some men were inclined to ask girls who were obviously too young. Brigham advised one such applicant to marry the girl, but to “preserve her intact until she is fully developed into [116] womanhood.”62 To Elder Amonzo Baker at Fort Supply Young wrote, “I do not wish children to be married to men before an age at which the mothers generally can best determine.”63 Bishop T. McCullough of Alpine City was told to take more wives, “but set a good example to the people, and leave the children long enough with their parents to get growth, strength and maturity.”64
A more serious issue had to do with the haste with which many marriages were consummated, a problem which resulted in numerous divorces. Church member Mary Jane Mount Tanner noted that “every single person was expected to marry, and a great many unsuitable marriages were made, many which were afterwards dissolved for it was a time of general religious excitement.”65 Brigham Young’s statement to Jonathan Pugmire, Jr., in December, 1858, gives further credence to this idea:
It is not right for the brethren to divorce their wives the way they do. I am determined that if men don’t stop divorcing their wives, I shall stop the sealing. Men shall not abuse the gifts of God and privileges of the Priesthood the way they are doing. Nobody can say that I have any interest in the matter, for I charge nothing for sealing; but I do charge for divorcing. I want the brethren to stop [117] divorcing their wives, for it is not right. I do not want to grant divorces.66
But these problems were to surface after the Reformation had terminated. Certainly in early 1857 Young’s spirit was buoyant and optimistic. On numerous occasions he expressed approval with the collective improvement of the Saints, even noting as early as late November that “if this people continue to do their duty as well as they are not doing it there will not be three years before we shall have the administration of Angels in our midst.”67
Brigham Young was not the only one to perceive that things had changed in Zion. Apparently the overall improvement in community morals impressed many. David Fulmer, a member of the Salt Lake Fifth Ward, contrasted the difference the reform had made:
Since a spirit of reformation has commenced the anger of the Lord is turned from us but if we had not reformed it would have been worse with us as a people. The crop last year according to Bishop Hunters calculating . . . was 15 percent under an average crop. This year they will be about 100 percent over an average. . . . When Bro. Brigham comes to the stand there is no scourging and whipping as it used to be but he is full of blessings for the people which is a manifestation of the Lord is pleased with us. I never saw such a time as the present since I came into the Church. There is no law suits nor high councils; if anything is the matter the Teachers or Bishops are able to settle it. . . . If there is a little iniquity among us we can see it quicker than we used to. No whiskey drinking in whiskey street as there used to be—no cursing and swearing in the canyons.68 [118]
Fulmer was not exaggerating. Many home missionaries in early January reported that individuals in their assigned ward were living harmoniously and were ready for rebaptism.69 In the first week in February, Brigham dramatically returned to public life, an obvious signal that he was pleased with the efforts of the Saints.70 On February 10, 1857, all home missionaries announced that nearly everyone in their wards was ready for rebaptism.71 For most that ordinance took place in early March. Many Saints regarded their rebaptism as a solemn occasion, a time of thankfulness and spiritual renewal. Richard Ballantyne penned this account of his rebaptism.
I was baptized by Bishop Edward Hunter for the remission of my sins, and the renewal of my covenant with God, to serve Him to the end of my days. . . . I am thankful to Thee, O God for this privilege and I determine to serve Thee with greater integrity and more wisdom. . . . And may the Lord my God now help me when I go out, and when I come into my house, that I may henceforth be a child of God, walking in all His Commandments and ordinances blameless, that I may serve Him while here in the flesh without by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that I may behold His face in the world of Glory.72
The sacrament was restored in April, approximately one month after the rebaptism of the Saints.73 For most Mormons participation [119] in this ordinance had been prohibited since mid-November. Elder Thomas Jeremy, pleased that he could once again take part in communion, thanked God for this kindness. “I pray . . . to my Heavenly Father,” Jeremy wrote, “that He may bless me and my family that we may ever be worthy of partaking of this most holy ordinance acceptably.”74
It was also in April that apostates and Gentiles started leaving Salt Lake Valley in large numbers.75 The removal of agitators and malcontents had become an important Reformation objective. In late December, 1856, Brigham Young told home missionaries “that the Gentiles and Apostates must leave us in the spring, or he would remove them on chips.”76 Apparently enough left that Brigham did not have to worry about their removal. In July, 1857, Young wrote to George Q. Cannon that “the territory this season, has taken an emetic. . . . the way Lawyers, loafers, special pleaders, apostates, officials, and filth has been cast out,” Brigham affirmed, “is a caution to all sinners, that here they would be in the wrong place.”77
It would be unfair, however, to assume that all those who departed were community blemishes. Elias Smith observed that many of [120] the apostates left hurriedly, before their nearest neighbors even knew that they were disenchanted with Mormonism. “A curious spirit seems to actuate them,” said Smith, “and I am not sure but some leave without knowing where they are going nor what for.”78 David Candland felt that many left because Mormonism became too restrictive and demanding.
The men who have gone from us have not gone because “Mormonism” is untrue, but there are other reasons that have prompted them to go. When I am at my business at the Globe, I have opportunities of learning from the individuals themselves why they go. We have sold a great many crackers to those who were going and I made it my business to ask them a few questions. Some replied that the reformation had developed more than they ever thought of, and that they felt they could not live “Mormonism,” and finally decided to go away. I said to one man, “What is the matter?” He replied, “I like the gentile manners and customs, and I will go where I shall not have the compunctions of conscience that I should have were I to stay here.”79
With the rebaptism of the Saints, the restoration of the sacrament, and the exiting of apostates and Gentiles, the Reformation as an institutionalized, organized movement came to an end in Salt Lake City and nearby locales. Significant improvement had taken place in both spiritual and physical realms. Church leaders had expressed satisfaction with the improved spiritual tone of the community and [121] the abundant snowfall and favorable crop outlook suggested to many that God too was pleased.80 [122]
