Mormonism and violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latter-day Saints Portal

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

The followers of Mormonism, especially in its early history, were typically the victims of violence. These people were persecuted violently and pushed from Ohio to Missouri to Illinois and then west to the Utah territory. There were incidents of massacre, home burning, pillaging, and the murder of their founder, Joseph Smith. However, there were also Latter-day Saints who perpetrated violence as in the case of the Mountain Meadows massacre. The effect of this violence has been a major driving force in the History of the Latter Day Saint movement and its doctrines.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Mormon views on justified violence

[edit] Justified murder or attempted murder

Mormonism teaches that violence and even murder can be justified in certain situations, so long as the violence is commanded by God. The Book of Mormon contains an example where Nephi, the narrator of that part of the book, came upon a drunken and passed-out Laban (1 Ne. 4:7-8) lying on the streets of Jerusalem. Laban had previously stolen Nephi's family property and had refused to give Nephi an important set of brass plates he needed for his voyage to the New World in about 600 BC. Considering the circumstances, Nephi was commanded by the Holy Spirit to remove Laban's sword and slay Laban (1 Ne. 9:18).

In 1843, Smith dictated a revelation justifying Abraham's attempted human sacrifice of his son Isaac. According to the revelation, "Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness." (D&C 132:36). Abraham was justified because God commanded it.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Justified war

• Book of Mormon quotes: war justified to defend lands and families from an invasion.
• War justified to overthrow an unjust government, or to prevent one from being established (Alma 46, 51, Revolutionary War).
• Later teachings (E.T. Benson?) justifying war to prevent the spread of an ideology (e.g., Communism)?^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Self-defense

• People of Ammon: self-defense not a requirement; strict pacifism praised. But see Alma 51, where people who refused to defend country and took up arms against country were executed.

[edit] Justified defense of property

• Ammon: amputation of arms in defense of property.

[edit] Justified vengeance

Mormonism teaches that in some situations, the blood of a slain righteous person "cries out" for retribution, an idea that finds several examples in Mormon scripture. In the Bible, for example, the blood of Abel ascended to the ears of God after he was killed by Cain (Genesis 4:10). In the Book of Mormon, the "blood of a righteous man" (Gideon) was said to "come upon" the theocratic leader Alma "for vengeance" against the murderer (Nehor) (Alma 1:13). Mormon scripture also refers to the "cry" of the blood of the saints ascending from the ground up to the ears of God as a testimony against those who killed them (2 Ne. 26: 3; D&C 88:6).

The need for vengeance is sometimes seen as a justification for capital punishment.

Though Mormonism generally does not condone vigilante retribution, there are circumstances in which vengeance is authorized, such as when the government is unresponsive to an injustice:

• Missouri revelation: forgive three times, then the Lord delivers them into your hands.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Mormon views on capital punishment

[edit] Capital punishment in the Book of Mormon

Religious justification for capital punishment is not unique to Mormonism (Gardner 1979, p. 10). Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon has passages that speak favorably about capital punishment. The book described a theocratic government with a law that "if a man murdered he should die" (Alma 42:19; see also 2 Nephi 9:35; Alma 27:6-9). Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon did not always require capital punishment and never indicated that capital punishment was a requirement to atone for sins. The Book of Mormon provided an example where God (and the government) forgave "many murders" after repentance, "through the merits of [God's] Son" (Alma 24:10). The book also stated that murderers could avoid an "awful hell" if they "repent and withdraw [their] murderous purposes." (Alma 54:7).

[edit] "Blood for blood" doctrine

Joseph Smith, Jr. did not teach blood atonement, but taught a "blood for blood" law of God's retribution, stating that if he could enact a death penalty law, "I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God..." (Roberts 1909, p. 296).

Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, was a strong proponent of capital punishment, and favored execution methods that involved the shedding of blood as retribution for crimes of bloodshed. In 1843, he or his scribe commented that the common execution method in Christian nations was hanging, "instead of blood for blood according to the law of heaven"^[1] In a March 4, 1843 debate with church leader George A. Smith, who argued against capital punishment,^[2] Smith said that if he ever had the opportunity to enact a death penalty law, he "was opposed to hanging" the convict; rather, he would "shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God" (Roberts 1909, p. 296). In the church's April 6, 1843 general conference, Smith said he would "wring a thief's neck off if I can find him. if I cannot bring him to justice any other way."^[3] Sidney Rigdon, Smith's counselor in the First Presidency, also supported capital punishment involving the spilling of blood, stating, "There are men standing in your midst that you cant do anything with them but cut their throat & bury them".^[4] On the other hand, Smith was willing to tolerate the presence of men "as corrupt as the devil himself" in Nauvoo, Illinois, who "had been guilty of murder and robbery", in the chance that they might "come to the waters of baptism through repentance, and redeem a part of their allotted time" (Roberts 1932).

Brigham Young, Smith's successor in the LDS Church, initially held views on capital punishment similar to those of Smith. On January 27, 1845, he spoke approvingly of Smith's toleration of "corrupt men" in Nauvoo who were guilty of murder and robbery, on the chance that they might repent and be baptized (Roberts 1932). On the other hand, on February 25, 1846, after the Saints had left Nauvoo, Young threatened adherents who had stolen wagon cover strings and rail timber with having their throats cut "when they get out of the settlements where his orders could be executed" (Roberts 1932, p. 597). Later that year, Young gave orders that "when a man is found to be a thief,...cut his throat & thro' him in the River".^[5] Young also stated that decapitation of repeated sinners "is the law of God & it shall be executed".^[6] There are no documented instances, however, of such a sentence being carried out on the Mormon Trail.

In the Salt Lake valley, Young acted as the executive authority while the Council of Fifty acted as a legislature. One of his main concerns in the early Mormon settlement was theft, and he swore that "a thief [sic] should not live in the Valley, for he would cut off their heads or be the means of haveing it done as the Lord lived."^[7] A Mormon listening to one of Young's sermons in 1849 recorded that he said "if any one was catched stealing to shoot them dead on the spot and they should not be hurt for it."^[8]

In Utah, there existed a law from 1851 to 1888 allowing persons convicted of murder to be executed by decapitation (Gardner 1979, p. 13).

[edit] Blood atonement

Main article: blood atonement

Blood atonement is the controversial concept that there are certain sins to which the atonement of Jesus does not apply, and that before a Mormon who has committed these sins can achieve the highest degree of salvation, he or she must personally atone for the sin by "hav[ing] their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins" (Young 1856a, p. 53). Blood atonement was to be voluntary by the sinner, or was contemplated as being mandatory in a theoretical theocracy planned for the Utah Territory, but was to be carried out with love and compassion for the sinner, not out of vengeance (Young 1857, p. 220). The concept was first taught in the mid-1850s by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) during the Mormon Reformation when Brigham Young governed the Utah Territory as a near-theocracy. Even though there was discussion about implementing the doctrine, there is no direct evidence that it was ever practiced by the Mormon leadership in their capacity as leaders of both church and state (Campbell 1988, ch. 11). There is inconclusive evidence, however, suggesting that the doctrine was enforced independently a few times by Mormon individuals (Stenhouse 1873, pp. 467–71). Scholars have also argued that the doctrine contributed to a culture of violence that, combined with paranoia from the Church's long history of being persecuted, incited several extra-judicial killings by Mormons, including the Mountain Meadows massacre (Quinn 1997).

LDS Church leaders taught the concept of blood atonement well into the 20th century within the context of government-sanctioned capital punishment, and it was responsible for laws in the state of Utah allowing for execution by firing squad (Salt Lake Tribune, 11/5/94, p. D1). Although the LDS Church repudiated the teaching in 1978, it still has adherents within the LDS Church and within Mormon fundamentalism, a branch of the Latter Day Saint movement not affiliated with the LDS Church that seeks to follow early Mormon teachings to the letter. Despite repudiation by the LDS Church, the concept also survives in Mormon culture, particularly in regards to capital crimes.^[9] In 1994, when the defense in the trial of James Edward Wood alleged that a local church leader had "talked to [Wood] about shedding his own blood," the LDS First Presidency submitted a document to the court that denied the church's acceptance and practice of such a doctrine, and included the 1978 repudiation.^[10]

[edit] Violence relating to Mormon temples

[edit] Oath of vengeance

Main article: Oath of vengeance

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young added an Oath of Vengeance to the Nauvoo Endowment ritual. Participants in the ritual made an oath to pray that God would "avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation" (Buerger 2002, p. 134). "The prophets" were Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and "this nation" was the United States (Buerger 2002, p. 134). (This oath was removed from the ceremony during the 1920s (Buerger 2002, pp. 139–40).) In 1877, Brigham Young noted what he viewed as a similarity between Joseph Smith's death and the blood atonement doctrine, in that "whether we believe in blood atonement or not", Joseph and other prophets "sealed their testimony with their blood".^[11]

[edit] Blood oaths

Main article: Blood oath (Latter Day Saints)

Historically, Mormon ritual provided an example in which capital punishment is contemplated, though not necessarily required, for violation of historical blood oaths in the Endowment ritual. The blood oaths in the ceremony related to protecting the ritual's secrecy. Participants made an oath that rather than ever revealing the secret gestures of the ceremony, they would rather have: "my throat ... be cut from ear to ear, and my tongue torn out by its roots"; "our breasts ... be torn open, our hearts and vitals torn out and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field"; "your body ... be cut asunder and all your bowels gush out" showing an entire refusal to accept the promises made in the washing and anointing ordinances (Buerger 2002, p. 141). These were changed to a reference to "different ways in which life may be taken" (Buerger 2002, p. 141). The entire "penalty" portion of the ceremony was removed by the LDS Church in 1990, and during its lifetime there is no documented instance in which a person has been killed for violating the oaths of secrecy.

[edit] Being "destroyed in the flesh" for violation of celestial marriage covenants

The most immediate precursor to the blood atonement doctrine stems from a controversial section of Mormon scripture dictated by Smith in 1843 commanding the practice of plural marriage (D&C 132). This revelation stated that once a man and a woman enter the "New and Everlasting Covenant" (a celestial marriage), and it is "sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise" (which Smith later taught was accomplished through the second anointing ritual), that they are guaranteed to become gods in the afterlife no matter what sins or blasphemies they commit, so long as they "commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood", and they do not commit the unpardonable sin of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost". If a sealed person shed innocent blood, they would suffer the fate of David, who was redeemed, but fell short of his exaltation, and did not become a god (D&C 132:39). If a sealed person committed the unpardonable sin, they would become a son of Perdition. According to early Mormon teachings, the unpardonable sin consisted of entering the New and Everlasting Covenant, and then falling away to become an "apostate".

However, if a sealed and anointed person broke their covenants to any extent short of murder or the unpardonable sin, they would still gain their exaltation and become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, but would be "destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption" (D&C 132:26). The revelation did not, however, specify the mechanism by which such people would be "destroyed in the flesh", and it did not indicate whether that "redemption" would be the result of the sinner's own blood or the atonement of Jesus.

[edit] Violence against Mormons

Early Mormon history is marred by many instances of violent persecution, which has helped shape the faith's views on violence. The first significant violent persecution occurred in Missouri. Mormons tended to vote as a bloc there, wielding "considerable political and economic influence," often unseating local political leadership and earning long-lasting enmity in the sometimes hard-drinking, hard-living frontier communities.^[12] These differences culminated in hostilities and the eventual issuing of an executive order (since called the Extermination Order) by Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs declaring "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State." Three days later, a renegade militia unit attacked a Mormon settlement at Haun's Mill, resulting in the death of 18 Mormons and no militiamen. The Extermination Order was not formally rescinded until 1976.

In Nauvoo, Illinois, persecutions were often based on the tendency of Mormons to "dominate community, economic, and political life wherever they landed."^[13] The city of Nauvoo had become the largest in Illinois, the city council was predominantly Mormon, and the Nauvoo Legion (the Mormon militia) continued to grow. Other issues of contention included polygamy, freedom of speech, anti-slavery views during Smith’s presidential campaign, and the deification of man. After the destruction of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor, Joseph Smith, Jr. was arrested and incarcerated in Carthage Jail where he was killed by a mob on June 27, 1844. The persecution in Illinois became so severe that most of the residents of Nauvoo fled across the Mississippi River in February of 1846.

Even after Mormons established a community hundreds of miles away in the Salt Lake Valley in Utah in 1847, anti-Mormon activists in the Utah Territory convinced President Buchanan that the Mormons in the territory were rebelling against the United States due to the Mountain Meadows massacre and plural marriage. In response, President Buchanan sent one-third of USA's standing army in 1857 to Utah in what is known as the Utah War.

[edit] Violence by Mormons

[edit] Mountain Meadows massacre

The Mountain Meadows massacre of September 11, 1857 was widely blamed on the church's teachings of blood atonement and other anti-United States rhetoric by LDS Church leaders during the Utah War.^{[citation needed]} The widely-publicized massacre was a mass killing of Arkansan emigrants by a Mormon militia led by prominent Mormon leader John D. Lee, who was later executed for his role in the killings. After escalating rumors that some of the emigrants had participated in early Mormon persecution, the militia conducted a siege, and when the emigrants surrendered, the militia killed men, women, and children in cold blood, adopted some of the surviving children, and attempted a cover-up.

Though widely connected with the blood atonement doctrine by the United States press and general public, there is no direct evidence that the massacre was related to "saving" the emigrants by the shedding of their blood (as they had not entered into Mormon covenants); rather, most commentators view it as an act of intended retribution. Young was accused with either directing the massacre, or with complicity after the fact. However, when Brigham Young was interviewed on the matter and asked if he believed in blood atonement, he replied, "I do, and I believe that Lee has not half atoned for his great crime." He said "we believe that execution should be done by the shedding of blood instead of by hanging," but only "according to the laws of the land" (Young 1877, p. 242).

[edit] Rumors of blood atonement enforcement by Utah-era Danites

Many of these rumors were centered around a group called the Danites. The Danites were a fraternal organization founded by Latter Day Saints in June of 1838, at Far West in Caldwell County, Missouri. The Danites operated as a vigilante group and took a central role in the events of the Mormon War. Joseph Smith eventually condemned the organization and its leader, Sampson Avard, was excommunicated from the church. Although the organization ceased to formally exist in Missouri, the name "Danites" may have been used in Nauvoo and Utah by outlaws with no apparent formal connection to the LDS Church (Cannon & Knapp 1913, p. 271). However, there is no direct evidence that the Danites continued to exist as a formal organization in Utah (Cannon & Knapp 1913, p. 271).

During the 1860s and 1870s, there were widespread rumors that Brigham Young had a Danite organization that was enforcing the blood atonement doctrine. Evidence of this, however, never rose above the level of rumor (Cannon & Knapp 1913, p. 271). Responding to this, Brigham Young stated on April 7, 1867:

Is there war in our religion? No; neither war nor bloodshed. Yet our enemies cry out "bloodshed," and "oh, what dreadful men these Mormons are, and those Danites! how they slay and kill!" Such is all nonsense and folly in the extreme. The wicked slay the wicked, and they will lay it on the Saints.^[14]

[edit] Thomas Coleman murder

An example used by some to illustrate the alleged practice blood atonement is the 1866 murder of the former-slave, Thomas Coleman (or Colburn), who was in good standing as a member of the LDS Church. As Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn has documented, Coleman was apparently secretly courting a white Mormon woman, contrary to both territorial law and Mormon teachings of the time.^{[citation needed][weasel words]} At one of their clandestine meetings behind the old Arsenal (on what is now Capitol Hill in Salt Lake) on December 11, Coleman was discovered by "friends" of the woman. The group of vigilantes hit Coleman with a large rock. Using his own bowie knife, his attackers slit his throat so deeply from ear to ear that he was nearly decapitated, as well as slicing open his right breast, in what some believe was a mimicry of penalties illustrated in the temple ritual. Not all of Coleman's wounds correlated with the temple ritual, however, since he was also castrated. A pre-penciled placard was then pinned to his corpse stating, "NOTICE TO ALL NIGGERS - TAKE WARNING - LEAVE WHITE WOMEN ALONE." Even though it was the middle of winter, a grave was dug and Coleman's body was buried. The body was disposed of in less than three hours after its discovery. Less than twelve hours after that, Judge Elias Smith, first cousin of Joseph Smith, appointed George Stringham (a Mormon ruffian and vigilante with ties to Porter Rockwell, Jason Luce, and William Hickman) as the foreman of the Coroner's Jury; they briefly met and summarily dismissed the case as a crime that was committed either by a person or by persons unknown to the jury, abruptly ending all official enquiry into the bizarre murder.^[15]

It has been suggested that the ritualistic elements involved in the execution of Coleman’s murder may have been in response to a public sermon made three years earlier by Brigham Young on March 3, 1863. In this sermon, Young states, “I am a human being, and I have the care of human beings. I wish to save life, and have no desire to destroy life. If I had my wish, I should entirely stop the shedding of human blood.”^[16] Following this statement, however, Young makes a statement regarding interracial relations in which he continues, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Young continues his sermon by condemning whites for their abuse of slaves with the proclamation, “for their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.”^[17]

With regard to Coleman's murder, LDS apologetics point out that the practice of "blood atonement" is said to apply to endowed Mormons who apostatized. Coleman was a member in good standing and was not endowed, suggesting that his death may have actually been the result of racism.^[18]

[edit] Other killings

One of the examples cited by critics of the church is a set of murders in Springville, Utah of individuals who, according to historical documents and court records, were "very questionable characters." Judge Elias Smith stated in regard to the case: "We have carefully examined all the evidence furnished by a remarkably accurate stenographic reporter, and can only conclude that evidence before the court goes to show' that Durfee, Potter and two of the Parrishes got into a row about matters best, if not only, known to themselves, and for that Potter and two Parrishes were killed."^[19]

[edit] See also

• Capital punishment
• Execution by firing squad
• Gladdenites (Attempted move to Utah)
• Pace memorandum

[edit] Notes

[edit] References