Containing 5,717 Articles Spanning 332 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Online Since January 1, 2005
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
Blood Atonement is a controversial doctrine taught by some early Latter-day Saint leaders, and expanded by Brigham Young, that within a theocracy, there are certain sins such as murder that requires that murderers "have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins" in order for the Atonement of Jesus fully operative in the repentance process.
| Of all the practices in Mormons past, none is so condemning as the pre-1990 Mormon-Masonic temple death penalties and those slaughtered in its practice.
First, I have asked my loved ones to please do not "love me so much as to shed my blood" - temple style. You see I am looking forward to the party room on the lower level! I will find solace, peace and happiness there! :) That is my choice, or so I must explain to Mormondumb members. However, for those in denial, one can see the blood atonement practice right on the BYU web-site (the last few paragraphs on this page):
This is called "blood atonement" as from pre-1990 temple death penalties, and was practiced literally in the early church under Brigham Young (not just an iron fist - but a sharp knife) as mentioned here in this speech by Brigham Young, a direct reference to Mormon-Masonic death penalties which I believe were originally used benignly by Joseph Smith to keep his many wives a secret. Joseph's many wives (over 33) which only exposed his secret after his death at Brigham’s prompting, who married many of the same woman. These wives had already accepted the sexual aspect of polygamy and bore many of Brigham's children. In contrast, only a few woman claimed to bear Josephs children. Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. I suspect other wives did not break their oaths with Joseph and remained private about their relationship.
Joseph demanded that his wives deny the fact of their plural marriage, as he always publicly did himself. Some were already married, some for time and others just for eternity, but all the evidence is that they had sex, including statements by many of the wives themselves, how else would one say they were his kids if they had no sex. Emma never approved of these wives but she was so pressured that she actually did choose a couple of Josephs wives, but the majority she found out well after the fact, after he died or never knew at all. Later, Emma's children in fact challenged Josephs wives in Salt Lake only to be surprised by the over whelming evidence and number of woman with whom Joseph had sex with, ummmmm, I mean 'married', never by state law, but by 'Josephs law' of plural marriage.
How did he do it? Well they were told by him to obey, marry me (Joseph), or be denied salvation, as these woman were told by him (seems that method was denounced at BYU - but Joseph used it just the same) and it worked for him. What charisma he must have had. I tried it and it didn’t work for me! Tons of documentation available on that method used repeatedly if you ever want to see it, read “In Sacred Loneliness”.
Now I am told by my TBM Uncle that my denial of Mormonism will send me to Mormon hell. I assured him of this I am now convinced, as I was told the exact same thing by the Jehovah Witnesses (must be true). Certainly after living Mormonism my entire life I must have been taught the reasons for blood atonement at church somewhere, but I just can’t recall that Gospel Doctrine or Priesthood lesson. I searched the title: “How is it right to kill saints with love who sinned a ‘gross fault’?” I couldn’t find it in any current manual, so why the cover up and change on such an important principle?
Reportedly many were killed in the “court of love”, blood atonement required for their adultery, once taken out the temple oath, Jesus blood is no good for them, they must pay the price themselves, and spill their own blood and by force if needed. It is the only loving thing to do for your friends. I am sure you heard that lesson at church, or BYU….. how about institute? I personally do not recall the lesson, I must have been asleep. To forget ones history is to invite it to repeat itself, can we afford that? Thank you BYU for publishing the truth, real history, even if it hurts! It is the way to honesty and eventually respect as more people come out of the dark.
"To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his stepdaughter by a bishop's court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] Reformation." (Utah Historical Quarterly, January, 1958, page 62, note 39)
This may be the same case spoken of by John D. Lee, who was sealed to Brigham Young and was a member of Young's secret Council of Fifty:
"The most deadly sin among the people was adultery, and many men were killed in Utah for the crime.
"Rasmos Anderson was a Danish man who came to Utah... He had married a widow lady somewhat older than himself... At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery... they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter. This Council was composed of Klingensmith and his two counselors; it was the Bishop's Council. Without giving Anderson any chance to defend himself or make a statement, the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections... His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried... she being directed to tell those who should inquire after her husband that he had gone to California.
"Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey Council. Anderson got up... and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the "Almighty God." They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.
| || Stop It, Brigham. Yer Killin' Me: "Blood Atonement" And The Lies The Mormon Cult Spins About It |
Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007, at 08:13 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: BLOOD ATONEMENT -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| What, exactly, is the Mormon Cult doctrine of so-called "Blood Atonement"--and what have so-called Mormon prophets taught about it?
Don't trust the Mormon Cult to tell you the truth on this score.
The Mormon Corporate Cult has attempted to whitewash its blood-covered hands through deliberate misdirects published, for example, in its underwhelming and underhanded "Encyclopedia of Mormonism."
This four-volume set of classic Cult deception was published under the acknowledged and corporately-assigned oversight of LDS apostles Neal Maxwell and Dallin Oaks.
That said, the editor of of the set, BYU religion professor Daniel H. Ludlow, notes in the preface of Vol. 1, p. lxii, that the Encyclopedia "is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In no sense does the Encyclopedia have the force and authority of scripture." (Vol. 1, p. lxii)
Trouble is, Maxwell and Oaks admitted to me in personal conversations in Maxwell's Mormon Cult office in September 1993 that they shepherded the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" to its eventual publication.
Indeed, holding a copy of the "Encyclopedia," Maxwell told me that he and Oaks had been consultants on the volumes. He said that his and Oaks' approach and inclination were to, when historians came to them and asked questions on various subjects, to include the matters in the "Encyclopedia."
Maxwell further said that he and Oaks had been working with Church Archives to ensure that a systematic procedure was in place to catalogue and "meter out" over time documents pertaining to these subjects.
In other words, the Mormon Cult Corporation's devious, degenerate DNA is all over the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism."
In this "Encyclopedia," its assigned cribbers and crafters make a clumsy attempt at skirting the issue of "blood atonement" and, of course, ultimately deny any Cult culpability for the "blood atonement" murders of its targeted victims.
First, for example, the lame effort is made to convince the gullible that the process of snuffing supposedly deserving sinners was a voluntary act on the part of the sinners themselves who earnestly wished to have their blood shed in order to receive final forgivness from the Mormon God:
"Several early Church leaders, most notably BrighamYoung, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood--presumably by CAPTIAL PUNISHMENT--as part of the process of atonement for . . . [the] grievous sin ["such as the shedding of innocent blood (whereby) (o)nly by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the atonement of Christ"). This was referred to as 'blood atonement.' ("Encyclopedia of Mormonism," vol. 1, Daniel H. Ludlow, editor [New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992, p. 131, original emphasis)
Next, Mormon Cult apologists lamely attempt to distance their Cult from its infamous, official doctrine on pletely disingenuous claims.
First, they insist that because the full Kingdom of the Mormon God is not yet in place on the Earth, people don't need to worry yet about having their own blood fatally splattered by God's designated Mormon avengers--meaning (according to the stand apologist line), that God only uses the term "blood atonement" as a linguistical pressure tactic to scare the hell out of people and into compliance:
"Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins."
Second, Mormon apologists dishonestly claim that "blood atonement" as way to kill murderers and other committers of major infractions against Mormon Kingdom leaders "is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time."
This assertion is a complete, unmitigated and deliberate effort at peddling fully-blown nonsense by Mormonism's designated liars for the Lord.
Historan D. Michael Quinn (who, by the way, was excommunicated for publishing the truth about Mormon preachings and practices), in his book, "The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power," offers stark evidence that "blood atonement" was, in fact, both advocated and acted on by Mormon Cult leaders:
". . . Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders . . . repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women.
"Blood-atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, 'covenant breaking,' counterfeiting, 'many men who left this Church,' murder, not being 'heartily on the Lord's side,' profaning 'the name of the Lord,' sexual intercourse between a 'white' person and an African-American, stealing, and telling lies. . . .
"Some LDS historians have claimed that blood-atonement sermons were simply Brigham Young's use of 'rhetorical devices designed to frighten wayward individuals into conformity with Latter-day Saint principles' and to bluff anti-Mormons.
"Writers often describe these sermons as limited to the religious enthusiasm and frenzy of the Utah Reformation up to 1857.
"The first problem with such explanations is that official LDS sources show that as early as 1843 Joseph Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins.
"Moreover, a decade before Utah's reformation, Brigham Young's private instructions show that he fully expected his trusted associates to kill various persons for violating religious obligations.
"The LDS church's official history still quotes Young's words to 'the brethren' in February 1846:
"'I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut.'
"The following December he instructed bishops, 'when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, and thro' him in the River,' and Young did not instruct them to ask his permission.
"A week later the church president explained to a Winter Quarters meeting that cutting off the heads of repeated sinners 'is the law of God and it shall be executed . . .' A rephrase of Young's words later appeared in Hosea Stout's reference to a specific sinner, 'to cut him off--behind the ears--according to the law of God in such cases.'. . .
"When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed 'if they were far away from the Gentiles.'"
The bloody beat goes on, as Quinn further details:
"As late as 1868 the 'Deseret News' encouraged rank-and-file Mormons to kill anyone who engaged in sexual relations outside marriage. . . .
"Under such circumstances the Mormon hierarchy bore full responsibility for the violent acts of zealous Mormon[s] who accepted their instructions literally and carried out various forms of blood atonement.
"'Obviously there were those who could not easily make a distinction between rhetoric and reality,' a BYU religion professor has written. . . . It is unrealistic to assume that faithful Mormons all declined to act on such repeated instructions in pioneer Utah. . . . Neither is it reasonable to assume that the known cases of blood atonement even approximated the total number that occurred in the first twenty years after Mormon settlement in Utah. . . . LDS leaders publicly and privately encouraged Mormons to consider it their religious right to kill antagonistic outsiders, common criminals, LDS apostates, and even faithful Mormons who committed sins 'worthy of death.'"
Quinn then notes another example of Mormon Cult-approved "blood atonement:
"5 Apr. , 'Clyde Felt has confessed to cutting the throat of old man Collins, at his request. The old man was a moral degenerate. The boy is a son of David P. Felt.' Grandson of former general authority, Clyde Felt is fourteen. Despite this blood atonement murder, LDS leaders allow [the] young man to be endowed and married in temple eight years later." (D.Micael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarc: Extensions of Power" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1997], pp. 241-261, 251-53, 256-57, 60, 804-05)
Unmoved by the facts, the shilling "Encyclopedia for Mormonism" limps forward in its same apologetic effort to deny that Brigham Young was responsible for any penalty "blood atonement" sentences imposed on those deemed deserving of the punishment:
"Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced 'blood atonement,' by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies and strangers.
"This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement--which was based on voluntary submission by an offender--into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but there were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood atonement." ("Encyclopedia of Mormonism," p. 131).
Again, total "B.S." (meaning, of course, "Brigham Spin").
Read the following and decide for yourself if what Young was talking about here (in terms of killing adulterers, for instance) was a matter of voluntary compliance on the part of the participating parties and if it was anything but a Mormon God-ordered execution:
"Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God.
"I would at once do so in such a case; under such circumstances. I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands." ("Journal of Discourses," vol. 3, p. 247)
Indeed, whether it was mingling sperm and egg with Black people or cheating on one's spouse, Brigham Young was all for either a javelin in the heart or a cuttin' off of the head.
Speaking of mingling white seed with Blacks, Young declared:
"If a man in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man, woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin.
"Would this be to curse them? No, it would be a blessing to them--It would do them good that they might be saved with their Brethren.
"A man would shudder should they here us take about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, allthough the true principles of it are not understood."
The bottom line is that the Mormon Church has committed the crime of religiously-driven murder in the name of "Blood Atonment"--and has been trying to cover its bloody tracks ever since.
(For further gory details on Mormonism's officially-sanctioned murders in the name of "blood atonement," see: http://www.xmission.com/~country/reas...
| I have been haunted by a post by tol about six months ago where she related her first temple experience and her father’s reaction of ‘beaming with pride as she slit her throat’ (in the temple) while covenanting with God. It has made me think even more often about a girl from my youth. I have felt a need to relate this and decided that today was the proper time to do so.
Her name was Brenda and we grew up together even though she was a bit younger than me. Although it seemed that she and her family had always been around, I distinctly remember the first time I became fully aware of her as a person.
We were in Primary/Junior Sunday School together when assigned to participate in the Christmas Nativity Pageant. It seemed that I always destined to be Joseph and had played the part the year previous with her older sister Betty playing the part of Mary. This year it was Brenda who would play Mary.
While we were silently acting out our parts I remember looking down and being fascinated at how her curly strawberry-blond hair seemed almost red in contrast to the blue towel she wore as a scarf. The blue also made the freckles on her face more prominent. I concluded that this is what the real Mary must have looked like. I also concluded that this must be what the original Mary must have been like–sweet with a girl-next-door attractiveness which even at this young age was obvious and a magnetic personality that drew you towards her.
Her attractiveness would later serve to win beauty contests. But it was her personality kept her on my radar screen. More than once I recall sitting in the high school library and would notice her coming up the sidewalk toward the school. As she got closer to the door other students would run to catch up with her and those going in the opposite direction would change course just to walk with her into the school. By the time she came down the hall to the foyer she had an entourage. She seemed to be friends with everyone.
However, being the pretend parents of a plastic baby Jesus was the closest I would ever come to having any kind of personal relationship with Brenda. Although we were always close we were worlds apart. She and her family were TBM and ward leaders. My family were less than fully active and laid back in regards to church, never holding high callings. Her family was educated with her mom LaRae having been to university and her dad Jim holding a doctorate and a job as a research scientist. My family was blue caller lumberjacks, farmers, ranchers and warehouse managers. In short, her family was adored and mine was ignored when it came to matters Mormon. If there was such a thing as Mormon royalty on a ward basis then she would be its princess and she was out of my league.
They were fine people with her mom looking the part of the quintessential matronly Relief Society President and her dad having the perpetual smile and easy going personality of a used car salesman. Her dad became the Bishop when we were in High School and it was his job to call me in for an interview when I turned 18 to ask about my plans to go on a mission.
I told him I didn’t have any plans to go on a mission because I hadn’t made plans or prepared to go. He didn’t seem surprised and didn’t use pressure, to try to get me to reconsider. He just wished me well and said that if I changed my mind to let him know and he would arrange it. We chatted for a bit and shook hands and I left his office knowing that I had sealed my fate in regards to prospects with any TBM girls, including his daughters.
Brenda’s life was headed on a trajectory that everyone expected of her. She won beauty contests, earned her degree and launched a successful career in broadcasting becoming the anchor of a news program. While at BYU she even found herself a husband.
He had all the credentials. Return missionary, ultraTBM and prominent mormon family with several members who were professionals, and more importantly held positions in the church. She had a worthy priesthood holder who could take her to the temple where she could make covenants with God and her husband and seal her prospective family together forever.
I imagine that in the temple her parents (particularly her dad Jim who’s emotions were always close to the surface) shed tears and ‘beamed with pride’ as she made covenants to obey God and her husband and sealed the oath by acting out the slitting of her throat. All those in attendance would have rejoiced at the moment. It would have been a particularly joyous moment for Jim and LaRae to witness their second -oldest and first-married daughter set a worthy example for the rest of their family to follow.
Her husband disapproved of her pursuit of a career in broadcasting and insisted that she fulfill her calling at home. She gave up her job as anchor and immediately started a family having a baby girl.
Looking back it seems ironic that I assumed that because of my background I was automatically disqualified from pursuing someone like Brenda. It is even more ironic that I went on to marry someone who was just as TBM as she was and had a similar background. It is ironic that I went on to become an active member and held many positions in the church including 5 years in the bishopric. It is ironic that I eventually had six children who were all raised in the church, three of whom served missions.
It is even more ironic that after such a promising start, Brenda’s life did not go so well. In fact while I was in the bishopric the Bishop asked me fill in for missing speakers one Sunday and give an impromptu talk on ‘Why Bad Things Happen to Good People’. I used Brenda’s life as an example of how terrible things can happen to people who lead exemplary lives. And how such things can be perpetrated even by church members themselves. Sometimes even by those who have held leadership positions.
At the end of my talk I spoke her name, Brenda Wright Lafferty, just to see if there was any recognition. With about a 125 people in the chapel, most of them long time members, there was not a single flicker of recognition registered. I despaired that not only had her life been taken in the most horrific way imaginable, but that nothing would be learned from the experience.
A few days later I learned of the release of John Krakaurer’s book “Under the Banner of Heaven: The Story of a Violent Faith”. Now everyone knows her. I will forever be indebted to him for telling her story and forcing them to remember her and understand what happened on that day.
Remembering Brenda Wright Lafferty on the anniversary of her murder and the murder of her daughter Erica on July 24, 1984.
| “The time has been in Israel under the law of God, the celestial law, or that which pertains to the celestial law, for it is one of the laws of that kingdom where our Father dwells, that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 219
“I say, there are men and women that I would advise to go to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their care; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye... I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood... Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid.”
- Apostle Jebediah M. Grant, 2nd counselor to Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, pp. 49-51
“I will tell you how much I love those characters. If they had any respect to their own welfare, they would come forth and say, whether Joseph Smith was a Prophet or not, ‘We shed his blood, and now let us atone for it;’ and they would be willing to have their heads chopped off, that their blood might run upon the ground, and the smoke of it rise before the Lord as an incense for their sins.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 179, February 18, 1855
“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the Kingdom of God. I would at once do so, in such a case; and under the circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.... There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109
“If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity. I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not. I would consider it just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of his sins.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109
I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 43
“Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved... and suppose that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin and may be saved and exalted with the God, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, ‘shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?’”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, pp. 219-220
“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it [the blood of Christ] can never remit.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 54
“This is loving your neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 220
“If men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants.”
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 375
Another of the murders under this dispensation, which Judge Cradlebaugh mentioned as "peculiarly and shockingly prominent," was that of the Aikin party, in the spring of 1857. This party, consisting of six men, started east from San Francisco in May, 1857, and, falling in with a Mormon train, joined them for protection against the Indians. "When they got to a safer neighborhood, the Californians pushed on ahead. Arriving in Kayesville, twenty-five miles north of Salt Lake City, they were at once arrested as federal spies, and their animals (they had an outfit worth in all, about $25,000) were put into the public corral. When their Mormon fellow-travellers arrived, they scouted the idea that the men even knew of an impending "war," and the party were told that they would be sent out of the territory. But before they started, a council, held at the call of a Bishop in Salt Lake City, decided on their death.
Four of the party were attacked in camp by their escort while asleep; two were killed at once, and two who escaped temporarily were shot while, as they supposed, being escorted back to Salt Lake City. The two others were attacked by O. P. Rockwell and some associates near the city; one was killed outright, and the other escaped, wounded, and was shot the next day while under the escort of "Bill" Hickman, and, according to the latter, by Young's order. *
* Brigham's "Destroying Angel," p. 128
Stenhouse relates, as one of the "few notable cases that have properly illustrated the blood atonement doctrine," that one of the wives of an elder who was sent on a mission broke her marriage vows during his absence. On his return, during the height of the "Reformation," she was told that "she could not reach the circle of the gods and goddesses unless her blood was shed," and she consented to accept the punishment. Seating herself, therefore, on her husband's knee, she gave him a last kiss, and he then drew a knife across her throat. "That kind and loving husband still lives near Salt Lake City (1874), and preaches occasionally with great zeal."*
* "Rocky Mountain Saints," p. 470.
How to navigate:
- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
|Donate to help keep the MormonCurtain and Mormon Resignation websites up and running! |
Note: Dontations are done via my AvoBase, LLC. PayPal Business Account.
|Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated. |
Website © 2005-2016
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119