New Essay: Peace And Violence Among 19Th Century Saints

[David T]

Danites, Blood Atonement and Mountain Meadows, Oh My!
https://www.lds.org/topics/peace-and-violence-among-19th-century-latter-day-saints?lang=eng&query=scholar
 
Some excerpts:
 
Danites 
 
 

At the Latter-day Saint settlement of Far West, some leaders and members organized a paramilitary group known as the Danites, whose objective was to defend the community against dissident and excommunicated Latter-day Saints as well as other Missourians. Historians generally concur that Joseph Smith approved of the Danites but that he probably was not briefed on all their plans and likely did not sanction the full range of their activities. Danites intimidated Church dissenters and other Missourians; for instance, they warned some dissenters to leave Caldwell County. During the fall of 1838, as tensions escalated during what is now known as the Mormon Missouri War, the Danites were apparently absorbed into militias largely composed of Latter-day Saints. These militias clashed with their Missouri opponents, leading to a few fatalities on both sides. In addition, Mormon vigilantes, including many Danites, raided two towns believed to be centers of anti-Mormon activity, burning homes and stealing goods.22 Though the existence of the Danites was short-lived, it resulted in a longstanding and much-embellished myth about a secret society of Mormon vigilantes.

 
Blood Atonement 
 
 

Nineteenth-century Americans were accustomed to violent language, both religious and otherwise. Throughout the century, revivalists had used violent imagery to encourage the unconverted to repent and to urge backsliders to reform.35 At times during the reformation, President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those who dissented from or opposed the Church. Drawing on biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, leaders taught that some sins were so serious that the perpetrator’s blood would have to be shed in order to receive forgiveness.36

 
Footnote 36 includes this:
 
 

This concept, which came to be known as blood atonement, was a stock component of anti-Mormon rhetoric in the 19th century. While many of the exaggerated claims that appeared in the popular press and anti-Mormon literature are easily disproven, it is likely that in at least one instance, a few Latter-day Saints acted on this rhetoric. Nevertheless, most Latter-day Saints seem to have recognized that the blood atonement sermons were, in the words of historian Paul Peterson, “hyperbole or incendiary talk” that were “likely designed to frighten church members into conforming with Latter-day Saint principles. To Saints with good intentions, they were calculated to cause alarm, introspection, and ultimately repentance. For those who refused to comply with Mormon standards, it was hoped such ominous threats would hasten their departure from the Territory.”

 
MMM:
 
 

In recent years, the Church has made diligent efforts to learn everything possible about the massacre. In the early 2000s, historians in the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints scoured archives throughout the United States for historical records; every Church record on the massacre was also opened to scrutiny. In the resulting book, published by Oxford University Press in 2008, authors Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard concluded that while intemperate preaching about outsiders by Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and other leaders contributed to a climate of hostility, President Young did not order the massacre. Rather, verbal confrontations between individuals in the wagon train and southern Utah settlers created great alarm, particularly within the context of the Utah War and other adversarial events. A series of tragic decisions by local Church leaders—who also held key civic and militia leadership roles in southern Utah—led to the massacre.41
 
Aside from the Mountain Meadows Massacre, a few Latter-day Saints committed other violent acts against a small number of dissenters and outsiders. Some Latter-day Saints perpetrated acts of extralegal violence, especially in the 1850s, when fear and tensions were prevalent in Utah Territory. The heated rhetoric of Church leaders directed toward dissenters may have led these Mormons to believe that such actions were justified.42 The perpetrators of these crimes were generally not punished. Even so, many allegations of such violence are unfounded, and anti-Mormon writers have blamed Church leaders for many unsolved crimes or suspicious deaths in early Utah.43

 
And the conclusion: 
 
 

Many people in the 19th century unjustly characterized the Latter-day Saints as a violent people. Yet the vast majority of Latter-day Saints, in the 19th century as today, lived in peace with their neighbors and families, and sought peace in their communities. Travelers in the 19th century often noted the peace and order that prevailed in Mormon communities in Utah and elsewhere.44 Nevertheless, the actions of relatively few Latter-day Saints caused death and injury, frayed community relationships, and damaged the perception of Mormons as a peaceful people.45

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints condemns violent words and actions and affirms its commitment to furthering peace throughout the world. Speaking of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Elder Henry B. Eyring, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, stated, “The gospel of Jesus Christ that we espouse abhors the cold-blooded killing of men, women, and children. Indeed, it advocates peace and forgiveness. What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct.”46
 
Throughout the Church’s history, Church leaders have taught that the way of Christian discipleship is a path of peace. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles connected the Latter-day Saints’ faith in Jesus Christ to their active pursuit of love of neighbor and peace with all people: “The hope of the world is the Prince of Peace. … Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must ‘renounce war and proclaim peace.’ As individuals, we should ‘follow after the things which make for peace.’ We should be personal peacemakers.”47

 
This is fascinating to see. Some incredibly frank acknowledgements concerning the behavior and rhetoric of Church leaders of the past, and a strong call to 'renounce war and proclaim peace'.

Edited May 13, 2014 by David T

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So the church really is hiding its history. Palerider has a thread on that. I saw it with my own eyes. I wonder if he will be dismayed by this thread?

Edited May 13, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Gray]

I'm glad they put this out. It does hedge in a few places but it's otherwise very frank and refreshing. 

[Senator]

Do we have an admission of an example where the teachings of the church leaders (the prophet) may have actually led some in the church astray and thus act wrongly?

[frank_jessop]

So the church really is hiding its history. Palerider has a thread on that. I saw it with my own eyes. I wonder if he will be dismayed by this thread?

Perhaps you can link to all the open and (somewhat) forthright publications from the Church regarding MMM, and many other topics that people do not know about.

Have you ever stopped to think what may have motivated the Church to produce the essay? Based your insulting remark concerning Palerider, the essay are unnecessary because the Church has been so open about the topics in the essays, right?

Edited May 13, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Nevo]

I agree that this is an excellent piece. I think the footnotes are deserving of special mention. I don't believe I've ever seen such a breadth of historical sources provided in an official Church publication.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Nevo

[Calm]

I knew I was going to find this thread started by David (having just read elsewhere there was a new GT essay out).  

 

(Finally, something besides evolution, global flood and politics to talk about…)

Edited May 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[ALarson]

I agree that this is an excellent piece. I think the footnotes are deserving of special mention. I don't believe I've ever seen such a breadth of historical sources provided in an official Church publication.

This.  I am impressed with how well written this essay is and the footnotes are incredible.

[Calm]

Perhaps you can link to all the open and (somewhat) forthright publications from the Church regarding MMM...

For ease, let's just take one topic and get up front what would satisfy as to "not hiding".  Publication in the Ensign?  Publication in an institute manual? How many over how long a period of time and how much detail would it have to cover to satisfy?

[stemelbow]

The way of openness is inspiring. I hope this continues and makes it way throughout the Church. Let the chips fall where they may.

[canard78]

So the church really is hiding its history. Palerider has a thread on that. I saw it with my own eyes. I wonder if he will be dismayed by this thread?

That's a snarky and unfair misrepresentation of palerider's thread.

He expressed concern that BYU had given a rendition of Helen and Horrace's story that glosses over and skips the challenging aspects.

As such I'm sure he'd welcome and celebrate a more realistic and balanced approach like this.

[MormonFreeThinker]

It doesn't look like the Noah essay 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

For ease, let's just take one topic and get up front what would satisfy as to "not hiding".  Publication in the Ensign?  Publication in an institute manual? How many over how long a period of time and how much detail would it have to cover to satisfy?

 

I am not one that frequently debates this topic, but for me it is pretty simple. When a topic that relates to a thorny issue is brought up in church material (Missouri Persecution, Joseph and Emma's relationship, historical information about Brigham Young), the thorny issue ought to be touched on briefly with a reference of where to find more information. The church has started to do this to some extent as can be seen by comparing the Brigham Young manual (no mention of polygamy, mentions two of Brigham's wives - but only the first two and presents them in a monogamist fashion) to later manuals dealing with our polygamist prophets. When we talk about Missouri Persecution (and perhaps we already do) we should mention some of the material spoken of in this essay.

 

These essays are a great start, perhaps even the foundation. If, however, we want to stop people feeling betrayed and that information was withheld though, it is not enough. If we want people to stop feeling a bit of betrayal, when we touch on church history (in films, church lessons, institute) we ought to tell a faithful history that touches on the controversial aspects as well. Whether this is advisable and would benefit the church, I don't know.

 

Edited to add:

The typical faithful lifelong member of the church attends church for 3 hours / week, attended seminary for four years, attended institute after seminary graduation, sits through 2 years of priesthood / relief society on Brigham Young, 2 years of Joseph Smith, and many years of Church history in Gospel Doctrine. Rightly or wrongly they feel pretty informed about these issues. They have learned about Polygamy, but if they were like me it was the Glenn Beck version of polygamy. When they find the truth from anti-mormon sources, that hurts for some. Maybe it shouldn't,  but for some it does. The information was out there for them, perhaps in Dialogue, perhaps in some Ensign article. That doesn't stop the pain for that individual and sometimes it results in that individual leaving the church. On the other hand, presenting the material more readily, while innoculating some might damage the faith of others. I don't really know the answer, but I think that the church has recognized the problem and is moving in the direction of providing more information. 

Edited May 13, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[frank_jessop]

For ease, let's just take one topic and get up front what would satisfy as to "not hiding". Publication in the Ensign? Publication in an institute manual? How many over how long a period of time and how much detail would it have to cover to satisfy?

Yes, one topic at a time, and I believe the Church has done a good job "officially" addressing issues. The "topics" essays, just started being posted last year right? I was addressing the insulting nature of Mola Roms post.

As the essays continue, and the Church keeps them online, then as years go by the "hiding history" will be less and less a issue for people to bring up. I am surprised that I have no read "Well the essay didn't mention, 'Men do your duty' or that children under a certain age were spared and "adopted" by locals". I am surprised that the essay mentioned the death of children, the attempt to cover it up the whole act. I also agree with what seekingunderstanding wrote about the essay.

[JDave]

I knew I was going to find this thread started by David (having just read elsewhere there was a new GT essay out).  

 

(Finally, something besides evolution, global flood and politics to talk about…)

Good news, calmoriah!  There are also a number of threads on gay marriage, polygamy, and the many things that the Church is doing wrong.   

[Rivers]

Great article. I was wondering when the next Gospel Topics article would show up.

But I wonder how many church are are actually aware of these articles and are reading them.

[Calm]

They may not be aware of them now, but according to Elder Snow, iirc, they are intended to eventually become a big part of self study and even replace the Gospel Principle manual for missionaries, so I see it as likely sometime in the future (perhaps when there is much more to work with) a bigger push to publicise them even though already there has been articles in the Deseret News about them and attention drawn to them on the main page of lds.org.

[canard78]

For those who might plan to share this with friends, here's the statement from the church saying the essays are approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve:

Most who study our history well understand the context of these matters as far as time and place. But some members of the Church — many, really — are surprised by some of the things they learn in our history. And we want them to be able to go to a place where they can read accurate information and be able to seek to understand those historical chapters in the context of time and place. And understand that those answers have been approved by the presiding brethren of the Church. I think that will give many of our members confidence that they can rely on these answers.

We have actually retained outside the Church History Department — we have retained scholars, for the most part outside the Church History Department — known LDS scholars to do some very extensive research. And this has been groundbreaking in a way. These issues have not always had academic attention. They haven’t really been researched carefully. So we are very pleased that these scholars would agree to do this research. They then submitted a draft of their paper to a committee of historians here in the Church History Department as well as General Authorities who have reviewed their work and adjusted some edits. Those edits are made with the permission of the original writer. And that’s then submitted to the presiding Quorums of the Church, the Twelve and the First Presidency for approval. And then it’s published in Gospel Topics under LDS.org.

Much of what’s written now, these arguments and these issues, have been around for decades — 150 years. And it’s the same material repackaged. And we understandably have not spent a lot of time in the past worrying about these issues because our mission is to promote faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. But as the information age is now upon us? We feel with all of this information out there, we owe it — particularly to the rising generation — to provide good, reliable information about these matters.

(Emphasis added)

Elder Steven E. Snow

Church Historian and Recorder and the Executive Director of the Church History Department.

https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=11373505780672488714-eng

[JLHPROF]

The way of openness is inspiring. I hope this continues and makes it way throughout the Church. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

So the question this makes me think is "why now?"

It is wonderful to see the church publishing articles that are open and honest about topics that were previously either whitewashed or ignored.

So what has changed?

Have we as a Church finally been around long enough that the things that were taught a century ago have moved from being embarrassments to being historical curiosities?  That's an interesting notion to me.  In another 100 years will Blood Atonement be to Mormonism what the Inquisition is to Catholicism?  A historical relic with no real impact on today.  And are other doctrines such as the priesthood ban and polygamy moving down the same path - from embarrassment to historical curiosity?

[CA Steve]

For those who might plan to share this with friends, here's the statement from the church saying the essays are approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve:

 

 

We have actually retained outside the Church History Department — we have retained scholars, for the most part outside the Church History Department — known LDS scholars to do some very extensive research. And this has been groundbreaking in a way. These issues have not always had academic attention. They haven’t really been researched carefully.

(Emphasis added)

Elder Steven E. Snow

Church Historian and Recorder and the Executive Director of the Church History Department.

https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=11373505780672488714-eng

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think these issues have not had academic attention or been researched carefully. Do they really think that these essays represent ground breaking research?

[Pahoran]

Perhaps you can link to all the open and (somewhat) forthright publications from the Church regarding MMM, and many other topics that people do not know about.

Fascinating.

One of these is the direct and immediate topic of this thread, and you are demanding (as you usually do) examples?

Have you ever stopped to think what may have motivated the Church to produce the essay? Based your insulting remark concerning Palerider, the essay are unnecessary because the Church has been so open about the topics in the essays, right?

What "insulting remark" was that?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

That's a snarky and unfair misrepresentation of palerider's thread.

I don't agree.

 

He expressed concern that BYU had given a rendition of Helen and Horrace's story that glosses over and skips the challenging aspects.

That's an unusual way to spell "whooped and cheered."

 

As such I'm sure he'd welcome and celebrate a more realistic and balanced approach like this.

Actually I suspect that this is the sort of thing that really gets him "dismayed."

Regards,

Pahoran

[strappinglad]

I must have had really rebellious seminary teachers. While I was in High School over 50 years ago, I was taught about The MMM and blood atonement. No one whitewashed anything. I knew that church leaders in the area were at fault and were deceptive and violent. Of course this was all before correlation .I did live in the wild west so we were used to some " questionable " practices in the area.

[bluebell]

I must have had really rebellious seminary teachers. While I was in High School over 50 years ago, I was taught about The MMM and blood atonement. No one whitewashed anything. I knew that church leaders in the area were at fault and were deceptive and violent. Of course this was all before correlation .I did live in the wild west so we were used to some " questionable " practices in the area.

 

I went to seminary in the early 90s and we learned about this stuff too.  I'm also from the wild west, so maybe that has something to do with it.  

[strappinglad]

As an educator I know that something being taught does not always correlate with that something being learned. Apathy and distractions sometimes interfere with a student actually absorbing info. The worry is that today's kids have an attention span of about 2 minutes unless it is connected to a video game.