New Blog Location

I've moved my blog to a new URL. Please update your links.

bethings.postplatinum.com

If you have Javascript enabled this page will automatically redirect to the new blog. If you're not redirected immediately, please click here to go to the new blog.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Not a hate-free zone

So recently the blogs of Kelly and Loyd were visited by an anonymous mormon-hater. It started with just a rude remark on Loyd's post about trying to be nicer, and then when Kelly snapped back at him/her, he/she posted some random anti-mormon comments, first on Loyd's blog (which the new, nicer, Loyd apparently didn't want to argue with), and then on Kelly's. Since I'm not new or nicer, I thought I'd provide a place for the anonymous hater to post his arguments without tearing down other blogs. (I've got a community to uphold, after all.)

Background
So, the hater's main topic was Mountain Meadows massacre. Just some background for readers that don't know, the massacre happened in Utah in 1857, when some mormon militia members slaughtered a group of settlers along a wagon trail.

From what I understand (and I admit that I got most of my information from Wikipedia and the recent PBS special), the relationship between the Utah territory and the US government wasn't so great at the time, and the mormons in Utah were (rightfully) afraid of further persecution and of losing their sovereignty.

So, apparently a group of militia members from southern Utah disguised as Native Americans, along with some actual Paiutes, (unrightfully) attacked a wagon train with the aim of getting them to turn back and leave Utah (possibly with Brigham Young's consent).

That isn't the most awful part yet. While they had the wagon train surrounded, one of the settlers got a good look at one of the mormons, presumably realizing that he was a white man, and not a Paiute. When the rest of the mormons were informed that their disguise had been found out, they decided (premeditated, in group meeting) to cover up their action by killing every member of the wagon train that was old enough to tell the tale. They met with the settlers, feined a truce, and then led them off and executed them.

The mormon participants swore to each other to keep secret what they'd done. Later an investigation uncovered the event and the militia officer that led the attack was tried and executed.

Discussion
So, with that all as background, this is the string of comments from Kelly's blog (just to provide context and separate the argument from the unrelated post):
Anonymous said...

Count your blessings, you got off easy. You could just as easy been one of the poor innocent victims at the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You lucked out and they didnt. They got shot in the head at close range by a bunch of crazed blood-thirsty Mormons. The young children got their skulls bashed in with a rifle butt weilded by the "good" Mormons of Utah. I dont ever want to see the Mormon Welcome Wagon heading my way.

kel said...

So, anon, I'm wondering what your motivation is here. It's quite apparent that you're anti-mormon. It seems random, though, that you start spouting on this post. Your comment has virtually nothing to do with any of the discussions on this page. So it would seem that you simply want to spread some of the ugly history about the mormon church around wherever you can. Is that right? I really have always been curious about the motivation of anti-mormons. Please, if you'd like, do fill me in.

Anonymous said...

Actually I love Mormons, but I do indeed hate Mormonism. The historical account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is well documented. I know most Mormons will tell you it never happened just like Nazis will tell you that they never ever killed a Jew. Come to think of it Mormonism and Nazism have many things in common but I wont bore you with the details because you wouldnt believe me anyway. My real goal is to educated everyone in the world about Joseph Smith. Joseph was one of the most evil men to ever walk the face of the earth. He was a pathological liar, a cheat, a scoundrel, a child molester, an adulterer, a thief, a murderer, a castrater, and all around bad person. Im glad you asked. And if you want to know Brigham Young wasnt much better.
I think my post was right on the money. You lost a radio. So what, someone will buy you a new one. The innocent victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre lost their lives and to this very day the Mormon Church has not accepted one ounce of responsibilty. That is shameful. But apparently you are OK with it as are all Mormons. Shameful, just shameful.

Now, my two cents. First, I in no way want to condone or justify the Mountain Meadows massacre. When I found out about it and just what happened, I felt sick. It was a horrible crime, and yes, it is shameful.

That said, why is it that people continually use this event as a reason for hating our religion and organization? The anonymous commenter claims, "I love Mormons, but I do indeed hate Mormonism." I think you have that backwards. You haven't said anything at all about Mormonism, but rather you've used the inhumane actions of these militia members, who were, sadly, members of our faith, to justify a belief that "all Mormons" condone, support, or "are OK with" murder.

You say that "to this very day the Mormon Church has not accepted one ounce of responsibility". As recently as this PBS special Church leaders express deep regret and sympathy for what happened. You might point out that this is not the same as accepting responsibility for the massacre, but the fact is that the Church is not responsible: those that attacked, plotted, and murdered are responsible. If you knew anything about the doctrines of the Church, you could see that the Book of Mormon teachings against secret combinations condemn the plot and oath and murder done to cover up what these men have done. Mormonism condemns what happened more explicitly than any other philosophy of which I'm aware.

Mormonism didn't cause the murder of those innocent people. So why persist in attacking the Church, and members of the Church, over this? It doesn't make sense to continue to hate mormons, or Mormonism, because of the sins of those murderers. I guess I don't actually expect a change from you or anyone else, but (maybe for my own benefit and for that of my friends) I wanted to point out the problem with this hateful line of thinking. I can at least hope that we'll eventually develop a hate-free zone for discussion.

44 comments:

Latter-day Guy said...

Well, follow that logic! You know, while hitler was a catholic, many of the nazis were protestants (Lutherans, mainly). Darn those Lutherans! Why'd they have to go and kill off millions of Jews!?

rph said...

This certainly is an interesting conundrum. What is most bemusing is that our anonymous assailant seems insistent that no Mormons have ever shown any shame or aknowledged the event. This, considering the nature of Bryant's post and Kelly's response to the comments made on her blog, is so obviously not true. To hate Mormons or Mormonism, furthermore, for something like the Massacre is a little ridiculous. The nature of the Massacre has nothing to do with our faith or us. You might as well hate white males and all human beings for the massacre because, guess what, the people who are guilty of this atrocity belonged to those clubs as well. Latter-day guy makes a good point; members of all churches have perpetrated some dastardly deed at some point in the history of the earth. You'd be hard-pressed to find a religion that haven't, but this is not at all a reflection, in most cases, on the church or the faith itself. Even in the case of contemporary terrorism, you cannot blame Islam. The real issue here is the anonymous attack and perverse language on persons who did not solicit such a response. Anonymous commentator, leave the axe you've been grinding in such a classless manner at home. If you want to have a real discussion with people who are concerned about the history of our church and not afraid to shy away from the details, then you are most welcome. But if your only goal is to raise temperatures and provoke reactions then it will remain obvious to all of us how pathetic a person you are. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Geez, you would think that I was the person who carried out the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I got news for you Mormons - I Didnt. You Did.
A peace-loving group of Christians from Arkansas were brutally murdered by a pack of blood-thirsty godless Mormons from Utah. There is also evidence that many of the women were brutally raped by the good Mormons of Utah and then were either shot in the head or had their throats slit. All of the men (and the women who were not raped) were stripped pf their clothing after they were killed and left as food for the buzzards and wolves. The good Mormons of Utah didnt even have the decency to bury the people they slaughtered. And you have the nerve to call me a "hater." You are beyond unbelievable.
Why dont you just admit it, you godless Mormons wear the Mountain Mreadows Massacre as a badge of honor. Those women and children from Arkansas were a threat and you certainly showed them who was in charge.
I will repeat again, No Mormon President of the LDS has accepted one ounce of responsibility for the slaughter of these totally innocent men, women, and children from Arkansas. President Stinkley showed up at the massacre site a few years ago and said, "We dont know what happened here in the past." Excuse me? We sure as hell do know what happened there, President Stinkley. A bunch of blood-thirsty godless Mormons killed (and raped) a group of innocent travelers from Arkansas. And you current Mormons have the nerve to call me a "hater" and a "pathetic" person. Unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

Mormonism didn't cause the murder of those innocent people. So why persist in attacking the Church, and members of the Church, over this? (Quote from Bryant)

I suggest you read-up on Mormon history and Utah history. Nothing happened in Utah without the consent of Brigham Young. Brigham ruled Utah with an iron-fucking fist. The was king and then some. If you ever crossed Brigham you ended up dead. Rule #1. Dont fuck with Brigham Young. Rule #2. If you do, prepare to die. Im happy to provide this information to you. And I repeat, I dont hate Mormons. It's kinda like "Love the sinner. Hate the sin."

rph said...

I suppose the truly amazing thing about all of the stuff you are spewing from your mouth was the "badge of honor" comment. I don't see any of us raising our hands to receive our badge of honor. If we are so proud of it why wouldn't we just admit it? There is no logic at all, anywhere, in your argument. Nothing happened in Utah without Brigham Young knowing? Prepare to die? You are the one who needs a history lesson. Any historical argument needs documentation. Where are your sources? How come nobody backs you up? This is what is unbelievable, your ability to make such accusations with such language and no support and no proof. You mention "evidence" like you're carrying it around in your back pocket, but yet you cite nothing. Look coward, to quote Paul Newman in the Sting, you come to a game like this you bring your money. You're broke. By the way, what's your religion so we can open season on it and include totally baseless lies, slanders, defamations of character, and outright offensive language in our diatribes?

Anonymous said...

Attack the messenger. Run from your past. Like I continue to say, "No one runs faster from the truth than a Mormon does."
Next thing you will tell me that polygamy no longer exists in the Mormon religion. Of course we know it is very much alive and well. Granted Mormons marry only one woman, but look around and you will see a live-in nanny, a live-in housekeeper and a live-in female cook. Lots of same age kids running around, yet just one wife. Come On! Open your eyes. They just dont call it polygamy. But we know better, or at least I know better. Anyone who can condone cold blooded killing has no problem with a little polygamy on the side.
Now back to Brigham Young, please do some research on his life. He killed, he raped, he castrated, he stole, he did plenty of terrible things. Now I have a question for you. Why did the LDS sue Brigham Young's estate after he died? Why is the name of Joseph Smith would the LDS sue the estate of the great Brigham Young after he died? Please enlighten me.

Anonymous said...

I suppose the truly amazing thing about all of the stuff you are spewing from your mouth was the "badge of honor" comment. I don't see any of us raising our hands to receive our badge of honor. (Quote from Payne-Holmes)

And I dont see any of you Mormons calling on President Stinkley to accept responsibility and issue an apology for the murder and rape of innocent men, women, and children. I can only conclude that all Mormons consider this a badge of honor. Secretly of course. As you know much of the Mormon faith is based on secrecy. Secret symbols, secret handshakes, secret temples, secret temple rooms, secret blood oaths, secret ceremonies, secret committees, secret bank accounts, secret aprons, and for God's sake even secret underwear. I could go on and on with this list but my fingers are getting sore.

Anonymous said...

I loved this from anonymous:

"A peace-loving group of Christians from Arkansas were brutally murdered by a pack of blood-thirsty godless Mormons from Utah."

There are mormons in every corner of the world, and we are not "blood-thirsty" people.
I don't like that you attack us with all those lies. We love the peace, we love Jesus Christ, we love the church and we love you!!.
You shoud not be lying and saying that offensive kind of things to us.
Oh! and the surname of the president of the Church is HINCKLEY!

Anonymous said...

Sooooooooo, those innocent travelers from Arkansas were not killed by Mormons? They were killed by someone else? Were they killed by Native Indians? How often do you Mormons want to re-write history? Ignore the facts. Run from the truth. Run from the facts. Like I have said a million times, "No one runs faster from their past than a Mormon does." Here is another factiod for you. According to the LDS tour guides at the Beehive House, Brigham Young had one wife as did Joseph Smith. In 100 years every Mormon will believe it. Show a Mormon the truth and the facts and they will deny the very nose on their face. That Mormon "Kool Aid" is some pretty strong stuff.
I wish Loyd would offer his opinion. But you know Loyd, he would say, "Let's meet somewhere so I can kick you in the nuts." Loyd has some serious issues. But God Bless Him I love his honesty. Or maybe I should say, "Joseph Smith Bless him." Cuz you Mormons dont really believe in God anyway. Joseph is your god. Brigham is your son of god. And I guess Stinkley is your holy ghost.

rph said...

Wierd, I'm still not feeling the "love" you speak of. By the way, you still haven't told us what your religion is.

Anonymous said...

I am a Christian just like those peace-loving travelers from Arkansas. Fortunatly no Mormons have tried to kill me. (Although Loyd does want to kick me in the balls.) I am also fortunate enough to live in a state that is not controlled by the Mormons. And for that I am eternally thankful.

Anonymous said...

Why wont someone explain to me why the LDS sued the estate of Brigham Young? Certainly one of you godless Mormons has a perfectly good ezplanation for the lawsuit.

BTW- Brigham Young died with an estate valued at over $7,000,000.00

rph said...

Why should we answer any of your questions when you never answer any of ours and whenever I present an argument you ignore it? I have to say, though, that you make our religion sound a lot cooler than it really is. Secret blood oath: How come I never got that memo? Secret committee: Why did I get left out? Secret bank account (!!!): I've been GIVING the church money all of this time, I had no idea I was supposed to GET money. Dang. It's amazing how you "know" such more about the church that I've involved in for the last 26 years than I do. I'm begninning to wonder if I'm really Mormon at all. Thanks for opening my eyes. Oh wait, I do wear the secret underwear, ooopppss, guess that's not a secret anymore. , and I do know some secret stuff that you have mentioned . . . Gee, I wonder, after all the lovely, kind, and respectful language you have used, why I won't tell you about that. Maybe it's because you're such a good "christian."

the narrator said...

like my annoying neighbor in high school, if you ignore him he'll eventually just go away.

and if he considers himself a christian, then i am sure glad he does not consider me a christian. i'd rather spend eternity in hell than a minute in heaven with a god he believes in.

Anonymous said...

Amen, To that Loyd. Besides you are gonna be up there on that yellow planet called Korab or Kolerabby or some odd name like that. Joseph is up there right now nailing some of your relatives.

Anonymous said...

Yes Payne Im quite sure that I know more about the MOs than you do. My information has not been filtered by the LDS and I still have a free mind, which is something you never had and never will have. You have that LDS hook so far down your throat that the only way it's gonna come out is if you crap it out and we both know that is never going to happen. I ask you for the third time; Why did the LDS sue the estate of Brigham Young? The great Brigham Young. The perfect Brigham Young. The infallible Brigham Young. Why was his estate sued? Certainly you have a logical answer. Have you taken a secret oath?

rph said...

Oh, hmmmm . . . I actually didn't know this conversation was still going on. Ok, first of all, stop trying to pretend that you know anything about me. You mean I was born without a free mind? How did that happen? How did you get one I didn't? These questions shall plague me for years to come and probably keep up at night in a brainwashed stupor. If only I was so enlightened as you! The truth is that if you asked anyone who knew me, or if you read my blog (which I don't invite you to do)you'd know that this proverbial hook is not that far down my throat. The way I've responded to your irresponsible tirade is not the way one of your alleged brainwashed Mormons would. I've responded reasonably and with good points and arguments that you, unlike me, have refused to answer and even discuss. And, you may recall, when you were claiming that all Mormons deny, but are somehow proud of the Mountain Meadows Massacre (that doesn't really make sense, does it?) I acknowledged it and expressed remorse, much like other members of the Church did in response to your provocation.

And now, without much further ado, I will answer your question: First of all, nobody ever said that Brigham Young was every perfect or infallible. I think he was great. But, among other things and like many Mormons and "regular" human beings during his era, he was probably racist. That's one example of his fallibilty. The point is he wasn't perfect, much like you and I. But that's not really the point, I just like to point out how full of crap you are. Anyway, you pointed out that the Church sued his estate. This is true and it happened posthumously. Suing someone's estate when they are dead is not quite the same as suing them in the sense that we all understand it today. So, you've tried to make it look like, well, I don't know what you've tried to make it look like, because if everything is as you say it is then the Church would never dare question Brigham Young, let alone sue him! But, because of the way things were back then, there were a lot of gray areas concerning what belonged to Brigham Young's estate, and what belonged to the Church. So, as is appropriate in these situations, the Church turned to the, wait for it, legal system to solve this matter. Wow! What a scandal! Good thing I've been protecting this with the secret oath I swore! You've got a point with this one, anonymous coward.

Anonymous said...

You may have an obligation to protect the name of Brigham Young but I dont. Most certainly Brigham Young gave the orders to massacre the innocent travelers at Mountain Meadows. The LDS has written proof of this but it will never be made public. Brigham Young hand picked every member of that Death Squad and all of the money taken from the dead bodies was turned over to Brigham Young. Brigham also got the fancy horses and carriages that belonged to the innocent travelers from Arkansas. To the victor belongs the spoils. In my book this makes Brigham Young a cold blooded assasin. Now maybe some LDS members have shown remorse for these brutal killings, but NO LDS member with any real power has stepped forward and accepted responsibility or even offered an apology. Like I said before, Stinkley went to the site and said, "We dont know what really happened here years ago." I think Stinkley and the LDS are afraid they would have to pay monetary damages to the relatives of the slaughtered Arkansasans. Money runs the LDS machine.
Now for the LDS sueing the estate of Brigham Young. Brigham Young was a thief. Brigham Young stole millions of dollars from the LDS church. Brigham lived like a king. Brigham owned several houses and he even had a summer vacation house. He had servants, maids, and body guards. Whatever he wanted he bought and he used LDS funds to pay for it. If he were alive today he would be in prison. He was truly one of the most evil men to walk the face of the earth.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
rph said...

By the way: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1c234dc029133110VgnVCM100000176f620a

be said...

Yo, Anon. I've been pretty lenient with your comments, but I don't want you turning this thing into a porn mag. I've been letting you comment whatever you want, even if I disagree with you, but keep it clean, please. If you'd like to repost those comments without being so vulgar, that's fine.

Steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Censoring the facts is a terrible practice but the LDS has been doing it for decades so I would expect nothing less from you Bryant. Censor, castrate, kill are three things that Mormons have perfected.
Steven please do a little LDS research on your own. When I give an account of purely dastardly events carried out by LDS leaders I am talking about people who are very high up on the Mormon food chain. Most importantly Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Both of these men were pathalogical liars, adulterers, child molesters, thieves, castraters, murderers, and all around evil people. Dont take my word for it, there is a very defined historical record of their evil deeds, thoughts, and actions. I often compare these two despots to Adolf Hitler and for good reason, all three of them murdered people without batting an eye. And for God's sake Joseph Smith is the rock and foundation of the LDS faith. For the life of me I can't figure it out. Joseph Smith ruled with an iron #&^#@)@ fist. If you crossed Joseph Smith you died. The same with Brigham Young, if you looked cross-eyed at Brigham he would have you executed. And this is your rock and foundation?

Anonymous said...

Bryant said...
Yo, Anon. I've been pretty lenient with your comments, but I don't want you turning this thing into a porn mag.

Hey Bryant. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had thousands of sexual encounters with teen-aged girls, some as young as 14. When Brigham Young was 42 years old he "Married"(don't ya just love that term) a 16 year old girl. Talk about porn magazine material. The truth hurts Bryant. The truth hurts.

Anonymous said...

First of all the Book of Mormon is a complete and total fabrication. There is not one word of truth in the BOM. Joseph stared into a hat and spun the biggest whopper known to mankind. A total pack of lies and I might add a total waste of time reading such a pack of lies. Joseph was a pathological liar and even he didnt know when he was lying or telling the truth. If Joseph's lips were moving then he was lying.
Please take the time and effort and learn about Joseph Smith's sexcapades. Joseph Smith had thousands and thousands of sexual encounters with teen-aged girls, some as young as 14 and quite possibly even younger. If Joseph were alive today he would be in prison. Picture your 14 year old daughter or niece. Think of what Joseph would do to her. Joseph Smith was an evil, evil man. Well Joseph is now calling the shots up there in heaven. He has replaced God. Joseph IS God. There you have it all you ever wanted to know about Mormonism but were afraid to ask.

rph said...

Ok, as the fount of all knowledge about our faith, will you please point us in the direction of the history you want us to know? I have asked you repeatedly for sources but you still haven't provided any. So either provide some sources or shut up.

Anonymous said...

. Fanny Alger (Smith) (Custer), 1816-? (died after 1885), was married to Joseph Smith in approximately early 1833, at age sixteen. She then lived in joseph's house as a maid but was expelled from the house by Emma when she became pregnant, according to one source. If this source is correct, it is not known what became of the child; possibly it died or was raised under another name. In 1836, Fanny married a non-Mormon, Solomon Custer, in Dublin, Indiana, where she lived the rest of her life. She and Solomon had nine children.

Anonymous said...

"Understand - ably, it is difficult to remain neutral when faced with the fact that Joseph Smith took at least thirty women as wives, that he physically consummated many of those marriages and made every effort to conceal this from his first wife Emma."


Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, (Signature Books, 1997) 788 pages, cloth, ISBN 1-56085-085-X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Smith's 33 Secret Wives

The topic of Joseph Smith’s polygamy1 tends to polarize those who grapple with it. Understandably, it is difficult to remain neutral when faced with the fact that Joseph Smith took at least thirty women as wives, that he physically consummated many of those marriages and made every effort to conceal this from his first wife Emma. Todd Compton’s book, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, is a calmly crafted work designed to bring truth and understanding to this segment of Latter-day Saint history which too often has been characterized by either deliberate obfuscation or shameless sensationalism. Misrepresenting polygamy, especially that of Joseph Smith, occurs most often when it is removed from its historical context. Compton (Ph.D., classics, University of California, Los Angeles), himself a dedicated Latter-day Saint who upholds Joseph Smith as true prophet, has produced a thorough, well-documented work. The result is that now those who would either vilify or glorify Smith’s actions based on incomplete evidence are without excuse.

Putting Polygamy Into Context

In Sacred Loneliness puts Mormon polygamy where it belongs and where it can be best understood — into the context of the lives of the men and women who lived it in the nineteenth century. To do this Compton provides a look at polygamy from the vantage point of each individual woman who became Joseph’s wife, as well as from that of her immediate family. This holistic approach to Joseph Smith’s wives is the main strength of the book. The author devotes a chapter to each woman, and starting prior to her birth, weaves a narrative that includes her childhood, her immediate family, and both her own reactions and those of her family as Smith introduces them to "the principle" — a term faithful Latter-day Saints used to refer to plural marriage.

Since the majority of Latter-day Saints and their non-LDS neighbors considered polygamy to be immoral, Joseph Smith’s highly secretive practice of it produced some understandably extreme reactions. For example, the author provides the following from Benjamin Johnson’s response when Smith asked him for his sister Almera, claiming God had commanded him again to take more wives (spelling and punctuation as provided by Compton).

"His words astonished me and almost took my breath—I Sat for a time amazed and finally almost Ready to burst with emotion . . .

In almost an agony of feeling . . . I looked him Straight in the Face & Said: ‘Brother Joseph This is Something I did not Expect & I do not understand—You know whether it is right. I do not. I want to do just as you tell me, and I will try. But if I [ever] should Know that you do this to Dishonor & debauch by Sister I will kill you as Shure as the Lord lives’" (p. 296).

Convinced Joseph was a prophet, Benjamin and Almera both consented to the marriage and in April of 1843 Almera became Joseph’s twenty-first wife. Joseph was 38 and Almera 30 at the time. Benjamin provides some seldom-recorded details of the marriage ceremony and writes that after the ceremony. "the Prophet asked me to take my Sister to ocupy Room No 10 in his Mansion Home dureing her Stay in the City." Benjamin later records that about three weeks after he [Benjamin] and Almera returned home, "The Prophet again Came and at my house ocupied the Same Room & Bed with my Sister that the month previous he had occupied with the Daughter of the Late Bishop Partridge as his wife" (pp. 297-298).2 Whether this refers to 19 year old Emily Dow Partridge or 22 year old Eliza Marie Partridge is unclear since Joseph had taken both of them as plural wives on March 4 and March 8 respectively, though neither were initially aware of Joseph’s marriage to the other. We will look in more detail at the plural marriages of the Partridge sisters later in this review as it provides a case study with characteristics common to many of Joseph’s clandestine marriages.

Compton’s work demonstrates fairness, accuracy and above all balance. He does not play to the sensational aspects of Joseph’s polygamy — like the number of wives who were teenagers (eleven) — yet he refuses to ignore or gloss over discomforting facts. His observations and interpretations assume Joseph’s status as a true prophet, yet he does not shy away from including historical material that calls into question Joseph’s character. Compton’s overall tone is favorable to both Joseph Smith and his plural wives, yet he refrains from pushing a purely faith-promoting interpretation of the material presented. His commentary contributes insight, understanding, and enough information to allow readers a sense of being able to draw their own conclusions.

The author uses extensive quotations from diaries, journals, letters, family reminiscences, legal affidavits and the like to achieve his goal of bringing each woman "vividly to life, giving a flavor of the way she talked, thought, felt, and believed, evoking humor and humanity that over-idealized or academic history sometimes ignores" (p. xii). These sources allow the reader to follow each woman’s life up to and through the trauma of Smith’s murder, the adjustments of widowhood and the arduous trek many of them made to the Salt Lake Valley. For most, polygamy would be a constant way of life, as they became plural wives of Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and other LDS leaders.

We get a taste of Compton’s commitment to a balanced understanding of polygamy early on, when in his introduction he writes:

Anti-Mormon polemicists saw polygamy as pure evil. Mormon men were viewed as insidious enslavers of women; polygamous women were seen as helpless, mindless victims.… After sweeping aside such melodramatic propaganda, one finds that in actuality Mormon polygamists, both female and male, were generally sincere, intensely religious, often intelligent and able, and men and women of good will. Nevertheless, my central thesis is that Mormon polygamy was characterized by tragic ambiguity. On the one hand, it was more than secular, monogamous marriage — it was the new and everlasting covenant, having eternal significance … On the other hand, day-to-day practical polygamous living, for many women, was less than monogamous marriage — it was a social system that simply did not work in nineteenth-century America. Polygamous wives often experienced what was essentially acute neglect (p. xiii)

History Surrounded By Secrecy

As he takes us through the lives of each woman, Compton’s thesis emerges with striking clarity. On the one hand, these women revere polygamy as a sacred trust, on the other hand they wrestle with the disappointment and loneliness that so often resulted. The author acknowledges the difficulty of presenting a fair and complete composite picture, stating, "Since early polygamy was secret and not officially documented, there are still many uncertainties in even a conservative, carefully documented description of Smith’s extended family" (p. ix). The case of Joseph’s marriage to 17-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney exemplifies both the extreme secrecy that surrounded early polygamy and Compton’s skillful use of the historical record to reconstruct the events.

In the spring of 1842 Joseph Smith privately approached a close friend named Newell K. Whitney, a man he had appointed as a Presiding Bishop, and introduced him and his wife to the doctrine of plural marriage. Following this, 36-year-old Joseph explained he had been commanded to marry their oldest daughter, 17-year-old Sarah, and he produced the following revelation which promises eternal salvation for Newell and his wife if they will obey:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N.K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph has made known unto you and your family and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house (p. 348).

The revelation continued with the wording of the ceremony to be used including the following pronouncement, "I then give you, S[arah].A. Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition" (p. 348).

Compton comments:

This was a marriage for time and for eternity. The references to "posterity" and the "rights" of marriage suggest that the marriage would have a physical dimension, consistent with the evidence for Joseph’s other marriages.

… Curiously, even though Sarah’s father had authorized her marriage to the prophet, Joseph felt that Horace (Sarah’s older brother) would oppose it and therefore sent him East on a mission: "But Joseph feared to disclose it [the marriage to Sarah Ann], believing that the Higbee boys would embitter Horace against him, as they had already caused serious trouble, and for this reason he favored his going East." This is an important reference, as it shows that Smith could use mission calls to male family members to remove possible opposition to his polygamous marriages (p. 349).

About a month later, Smith wrote a letter to the Whitneys asking them to meet him in hiding and bring their daughter, but cautions:

the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty…

Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. … I close my letter, I think emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith (p. 350 — spelling and punctuation as provided by Compton).

Compton observes that, "The cloak-and-dagger atmosphere of this letter is typical of Nauvoo polygamy."

About nine months later Joseph arranged a mock wedding, which he officiated, of Sarah Ann and Joseph Kingsbury in order to cover his own polygamous relationship with her (p. 351). Compton writes:

Historians of polygamy will remember Sarah Ann Whitney Smith, Kingsbury Kimball as a participant in the only well-documented "pretend" marriage that Joseph Smith engineered to cloak a polygamous marriage of his own—an interesting example of the lengths to which he would go to preserve the secrecy of plural marriage. Her sealing to Smith is also significant in its demonstration of a classic dynastic marriage between Smith and an important church family, a marriage that assured the Whitneys eternal blessings and an important connection to the Mormon prophet in this life (p. 362).

If there is any aspect of Compton’s work that may be less than satisfying it is the ease with which he attributes a chiefly sociological motivation to Joseph Smith's plural marriages and avoids raising the issue of sexual impropriety. In cases like that of Sarah Ann Whitney (17) and Helen Mar Kimball (14), where Smith sought out the daughters of early LDS church leaders, Compton is quick to identify Joseph’s dynastic interest in the girls. In other words, Joseph desires to establish a deep and abiding relationship with the parents and link them to himself; marriage to their young daughter is seen as the means to that end (pp. 497, 500). While Compton presents some evidence that the parents saw this dynastic aspect and even appreciated the closer relationship they had with the Prophet as a result, there is little evidence that suggests the parents understood this as Joseph's goal rather than simply a natural by-product of Joseph marrying their daughter. Other evidence even seems to argue against a dynastic motivation, for Compton states that "there is no evidence elsewhere that Smith married for eternity only, not including 'time'" (p. 500).3 To his credit, Compton does not eliminate sexual desire from the equation. After reviewing the data regarding the ages of his plural wives4 he acknowledges that,

"These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith's polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply and replenish the earth was part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual marriage was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it (pp. 11-12).

While it is quite possible that Joseph Smith's motivation included a desire to form dynastic links, one has to wonder why he needed to marry the girls for both "time and eternity" and then physically consummate the marriage to accomplish this goal.

Since it would be naive to ignore the nature of the human heart, the tendency of power to corrupt, and the all too common use of a position of authority for sexual advantage, can one be judged too severely for considering an alternate motivation? Is it not almost more plausible that having these young girls as wives — with all the corresponding rights and privileges — was Joseph's primary goal, and that his close relationship to the family as both friend and infallible spiritual leader was the means to that end? Could it be Joseph approached those with whom he already had an established relationship because he knew they would be among the least likely to question his character and refuse a command he claimed came directly from God?

It is clear from the historical accounts that those who were approached about plural marriage to Joseph Smith were shocked to the core of their being, and many initially refused his advances outright. Though in the case of 19-year-old Zina D. Huntington, her refusal of Smith and even her eventual marriage on March 7, 1841 to young Henry Jacobs did not stop Joseph's advances. Shortly after their wedding Smith informed them that Zina was to be his celestial wife. Interestingly enough, her husband Henry accepted this for he believed that "whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man" (p. 81). Zina, however, continued to resist. Like most of the other women Joseph pursued, Zina complied after being convinced that plural marriage came from God. Compton writes:

Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life." Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced (pp. 80-81).

It is clear these women took their marriages to Joseph very seriously, and understandably so, since Joseph had made it clear that not only in some cases was his life at stake, but that in other cases, marriage to him would guarantee her salvation, and also the salvation of her parents (p. 349).

Yet, in the case of the Partridge sisters, after marrying and physically consummating the marriage, Joseph's first wife Emma either discovered or suspected the physical nature of the relationship. When she protested, Smith dismissed the marriages with a handshake (p. 411). This apparently casual attitude toward a sacred vow with eternal consequences suggests that Joseph did not take his marriages as seriously as those to whom he was married. It also raises serious questions with staggering implications regarding why Joseph introduced polygamy in the first place. While Compton never even suggests sexual impropriety on Joseph's part, perhaps it is enough that he provides sufficient documentation to enable the reader to draw his own conclusions.

The Partridge Sisters: A Plural Marriage Case Study

According to Compton, the cases of Emily (19) and Eliza (22) Partridge contain elements common to many of Joseph’s plural marriage:

They had shared a home with Joseph and Emma before being approached about plural marriage, as did Sarah (17) and Maria (19) Lawrence, Fanny Alger (17), Melissa Lott (19), Elvira Cowles (29), Desdemonia Fuller (32), and Eliza Snow (38)
They were sworn to secrecy and told of the plural wife system as a new revelation from God before being specifically asked to marry Joseph Smith
Their initial reaction (when recorded) was often one of shock and at times revulsion (suggesting a strong moral upbringing and commitment to personal purity)
They viewed Smith as an infallible prophet of God
They were told by Smith the marriage was commanded by God
They were told that entering into plural marriage with him (Smith) would guarantee eternal life in the celestial kingdom for themselves and their immediate family
They had a physical marital relations with Smith but were never allowed to relate to Smith publicly as his wife
They were told to maintain strict secrecy about the relationship, especially when it came to Emma, Joseph’s first wife
Following Joseph’s death they were allowed to pick which of several LDS leaders they wanted to wed with most becoming plural wives of either Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball
Their subsequent lives were characterized by marital isolation and loneliness offset at times by close relationships with "sister" wives
The conclusion of Compton’s chapter on Emily contains the following:

"Emily Partridge provides us with a classic example of the central pattern examined in this book: polygamy may be sacred in theory, but when practiced on a day-to-day basis the plural wife is not given financial or emotional support. In Nauvoo Joseph taught Emily the principle of plural, celestial marriage, and married her and Eliza, but then acquiesced to Emma’s browbeatings and consented to his new wives’ expulsion from his home. Then he allowed the marriages to lapse, apparently taking the unions less seriously than did the Partridges. It should be remembered that he had at least thirty other wives to turn to at the time. After Joseph’s death, Emily married Brigham Young in open polygamy, but from the beginning of the marriage to its end she was less than a full wife in his family. During the exodus from Nauvoo, the haunting image of the lonely wife standing with new-born baby in the snow shows Emily’s lack of practical marital support. . . . Her diary entries expressing her resentment form a significant document, a moving cri de coeur against a non-supportive polygamous husband. The fact that this husband was the prophet and president of the church added a note of cognitive dissonance to her journal, for her religion demanded that she see him as an inspired religious leader. Her words of praise for Brigham after his death show her highly developed capacity for Christian forgiveness" (p. 432).

Conclusion

Compton’s book should prove to be a landmark work on early Mormon polygamy. Besides the extensive quotes from journals and diaries there is an excellent prologue containing an overview summary of Joseph’s polygamy which briefly covers the timing of Joseph’s marriages, the issue of how many women he married, their ages and Joseph’s sexual involvement with them. Compton also addresses the martial status of these women and possible motives behind Joseph’s plural relationships. The highlight of the prologue, however, is a six-page chart listing Joseph’s plural wives. It contains the date of each marriage, their marital status prior to marrying Smith (11 already married to other men), the age at which they married Smith, and a short summary of their later lives.

Overall this book provides a broad look at how Joseph Smith viewed and practiced polygamy and it illustrates the effects of plural marriage on those who lived it. It also, and perhaps most importantly, provides the historical evidence whereby a religious leader’s actions and his claims to be a prophet of God can be evaluated based on historical truth. Those who honestly consider the implications of this evidence may share the reaction of LDS author and editor Lavina Fielding Anderson:

I was shocked and disgusted to discover that Joseph Smith married a fourteen-year-old girl, fully consummated that marriage, and concealed it from Emma. My image of "prophet" did not accommodate this kind of behavior (Sunstone, October 1990, p. 27).

While such information tends to be initially disquieting, the end result is beneficial if we are brought even one step closer to the truth. That being the case, we will have benefited from the stories of these women — women who married Joseph Smith, and who then lived their lives In Sacred Loneliness.

Addendum

Other research done by LDS scholars which complements Compton's work includes but is not limited to:

Prisoner for Polygamy: The Memoirs and Letters of Rudger Clawson at the Utah Territorial Penitentiary, 1884-87, (University of Illinois Press, 1993, 256 pages) by Stan Larson (former employee of the LDS Church's Translation Services department). Clawson was a second generation polygamist and the first to be tried and convicted for polygamy and cohabitation. At the time of his release he had served longer than any other convicted polygamist. He was also a prominent member of the LDS church. He served, among other things as a stake president, apostle, and counselor in the First Presidency, and his letters and prison journal reflect the pride and commitment he had both to his church and polygamy as an eternal doctrine. This commitment is further evidenced by his 1904 post-Manifesto plural marriage.
Steven Faux, "Genetic Self Interest & Mormon Polygyny: A Sociobiological Perspective of the Doctrinal Development of Polygyny" in Sunstone, July-August 1983, pages 37-40. Dr. Faux, a professor of psychology at Drake University whose ancestors were practicing LDS polygamists, looks at little-known attitudes of early Mormon leaders regarding polygamy. He introduces quotes from LDS Presidents and apostles Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, and George Q. Cannon supporting his thesis that nineteenth century polygamists saw themselves as spiritually superior men who were divinely commanded to propagate their own bloodlines to an extent not possible with only one wife. Faux writes:
Discourse about polygny often emphasized the need to control and discriminate the types of men who would become polygynists. Heber C. Kimball's comment, while manifesting hyperbole, reveals the general attitude of the period: "If I am not a good man, I have no right in this church to a wife or wives, or to the power to propogate my species. What then should be done with me? Make me a eunuch and stop my propagation. (p. 38).

Faux provides the following from George Q. Cannon, an apostle and First Counselor to three LDS presidents:

There are those in this audience who are descendants of the Lord's Twelve Apostles — and, shall I say it, yes, descendants of the Savior himself. His seed is represented in the body of these men (p. 39).

Faux's article explores an aspect of polygamy the modern LDS church studiously avoids.

Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, (Signature Books, second edition, 1989, 255 pages). Perhaps the best known and most respected historical study, tracing polygamy from its inception through both manifestos, up to the founding of fundamentalist polygamist groups.
Of interest also is Polygamous Families In Contemporary Society by Irwin Altman and Joseph Ginat (Cambridge University Press, 1996, 512 pages). Though neither are LDS, their work shows in part how the legacy of nineteenth century polygamy as a means of creating spiritual and earthly dynasties continues to impact modern polygamists who also believe that only "righteous men" are to "have the privilege of being patriarchs of plural families" (pp. 92-93).
— Joel B. Groat


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

1Compton provides the following helpful definition of terms:

POLYGAMY ("many-marriage"): A man or woman has two or more marriage partners. Plural marriage is the preferred Mormon term. Anthropologically, polygamy is divided into two subcategories: polygyny and polyandry.

POLYGYNY (i.e., "many-woman"): A man is married to two or more women simultaneously.

POLYANDRY (i.e., "many-man"): A woman has multiple husbands. Back to review

2According to Benjamin, Joseph Smith visited again five months later, but this time asked for Benjamin’s youngest sister who was 15 years old. When Joseph was told she was already engaged he "reluctantly" let the matter drop (p. 298). Back to review

3 It is interesting that Compton seems compelled to provide a sociological reason for Joseph’s plural marriages whether it be levirate (marrying a brother's spouse to carry on the family name for him), or dynastic (marrying for the sake of creating or strengthening ties between families) when Joseph repeatedly gave his motivation as theological. Was Joseph intentionally creating dynastic links or was he simply following a direct command of God as an obedient Prophet. And is it less of a breach of integrity to use "The Lord God said" to cover for a social motivation rather than a sexual one? Maybe Compton is not all that comfortable — and understandably so — with a Prophet who "often framed his marriage proposals in terms of a divine fait accompli — the Lord had already 'given' the woman to the prophet. God was the ratifying agent, and it was sacrilegious to doubt. It was the woman's duty to comply with the fact that she was already Joseph's possession" (p. 407). Back to review

4 Compton provides the following age categories of Joseph Smith's wives and how many he had in each: eleven wives — 14-20 years old, nine wives — 21-30 years old, eight wives — 31-40 years old, two wives — 41-50 years old, and three wives 51-60. He notes, "The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk-wisdom that sees the beginning of polygamy as an attempt to care for older, unattached women. These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith's polygamy" (p. 11). Back to review




Bible Courses | Book of Abraham | Book of Mormon | Book Reviews | E-mail
Joseph Smith | LDS Doctrine & Bible | Mormon Origins | Stories | Support Group | What's New

Copyright © 1999 Institute for Religious Research. All rights reserved.

rph said...

Wonderful! You actually posted something substantive. The problem is that we already knew that Joseph was a polygamist. The strange thing is that this does nothing to support your accusations of castration, bending people over furniture or Brigham Young's iron fist. I think this reveals more than ever what you are all about.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes history is interpreted. Both Brother Joseph and Brother Brigham had thousands and thousands of sexual relations with girls as young as 14. Using a bit of common sense interpretation we can deduce that both of them were sexual addicts and both of them loved getting teen-aged girls naked. We know that both men were violent by nature so Im guessing that they were also violent sex partners. If I get anymore graphic with this description it will get deleted.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you loving Mormons can answer a question for me. Why did Joseph and Brigham hate the Black race? One or both of them called them "the curse of Cain." Why did they hate Black people? Do you still hate Blacks? Were the great phophets, Joseph and Brigham, wrong?

Anonymous said...

Blood Atonement and the Early Mormon Church

Brigham Young (1851 photo)


Introduction

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion and its first prophet, taught that certain sins were so so serious as to put the sinner "beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ." For these fallen sinners, their "only hope" lay in having "their own blood shed to atone." Smith made clear that the shedding of "innocent blood" (including killing anyone less than eight years old, the age of accountability in Mormon teaching) was an unpardonable sin which, along with failing to keep their covenants or betraying their testimonies, could lead to eternal damnation. In Smith's theology, the doctrine applied only to Mormons, but it was widely viewed as providing justification for shedding the blood of apostates.

Brigham Young took the doctrine of blood atonement further than Smith. According to historian Juanita Brooks, "Young advocated and preached it without compromise." Young, in an 1857 fire-and-brimstone sermon, demanded to know whether his his flock would have the courage to do what was necessary should a fellow Mormon commit an unforgiveable sin: "Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed his blood?" Some sinners, Young preached, who are "now angels to the devil" could have been saved if only some among their Mormon brethren would have "spilled their blood on the ground as a smoking incense to the almighty."

While Church leaders might have emphasized the practice of blood atonement against fallen Mormons, it contributed to the culture of extreme violence that marred the history of early Utah. The sermons of Brigham Young undoubtedly inspired his followers to commit murder, however unfair might have been the popular press's willingness to blame every violent act in the territory to blood atonement.

The modern Mormon church has abandoned the doctrine of blood atonement, along with its promotion of theocracy, polygamy, communalism, "holy murder," and other teachings that made in so controversial in its early years, and that accounted for much of the hostility the Church received from those outside of its membership. As historian Will Bagley, author of Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows stated in the introduction to his carefully researched book, "[T]he 'old time religion' [of the period surrounding the massacre] has little relation to today's LDS church, which for a century has been firmly committed to becoming no more controversial than Methodism."

Excerpts from the Sermons of Brigham Young:

September 21, 1856 sermon
"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them....

"And further more, 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 thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

"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 can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man."


(Sermon by Brigham Young published in the Mormon Church's Deseret News, 1856)


-----
February 8, 1857 sermon


"Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved... and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, 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 his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin and be saved and exalted with the Gods, 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?'

"All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant....

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance... if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the Devil... I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them....

"This is loving our neighbor 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....if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind."


(Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857)


John D. Lee on Blood Atonement (from his confession)


In his confession, Lee offered a chilling account of one instance of blood atonement in early Utah:


"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..

"As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash... She obeyed their orders.... Anderson was killed just before the Mountain Meadows massacre. The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act. It was justified by all the people, for they were bound by the same covenants, and the least word of objection to thus treating the man who had broken his covenant would have brought the same fate upon the person who was so foolish as to raise his voce against any act committed by order of the Church authorities."

Anonymous said...

Brigham Young declared martial law on September 15. In his proclamation (of dubious legality), Young prohibited "all armed forces...from entering this territory" and ordered the Nauvoo Legion to prepare for an expected invasion by federal forces. The proclamation also prohibited any person from passing through the territory without a permit from "the proper officer."

Shortly after his proclamation, Young learned of the tragic events at Mountain Meadows, first from Indian chiefs and then from John Lee, who traveled to Salt Lake City to provide a detailed account of the massacre. According to Lee, Young at first expressed dismay about the Mormon participation in the massacre. He seemed especially concerned that news of the massacre would damage the national reputation of the Latter-day Saints The next day, however, Young said he was at peace with what happened. According to Lee, Young said, "I asked the Lord if it was all right for the deed to be done, to take away the vision of the deed from my mind, and the Lord did so,

Anonymous said...

I think you good Mormons are waving the white flag. Remember that happened when you good Mormons waved the white flag at Mountain Meadows? That's right. The good Mormons were told to "Do Your Duty." The lesson learned that day was to never, ever trust a Mormon. They will stab you in the back or in this case shoot you in the head. And to think, most of the murderers got away Scott-Free.

Anonymous said...

MORMONISM
A Latter Day Deception

by Martin Wishnatsky




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Introduction

Author Bio

Chapter One:
The Washington Temple

Chapter Two:
The Princeton Stacks

Chapter Three:
Holy Murder

Chapter Four:
The Prophet

Chapter Five:
Becoming a God

Chapter Six:
Granite Mountain

Chapter Seven:
Kingdom Come

Conclusion

Chapter Three:
Holy Murder


We would not kill a man, of course,
unless we killed him to save him.

Brigham Young
1855


Having satisfied myself as to the character and origin of the Temple ceremonies, I knew I could no longer be a Mormon. Nevertheless, I felt quite uneasy at actually leaving the Church and, especially telling them why I was leaving.

First Sunday after the Temple Visit

The Sunday morning after our trip to the Temple the Bishop's First Counselor, as militant a Mormon as you will find, called me to the stand to testify of my experience. I'm sure he wanted to see if they were going to have any trouble with me and put me on the spot to find out. If I told these people what I actually thought ("I have now found out that this institution is actually evil . . . ."), would my life be in danger? The idea was too fantastic to credit, but, taking no chances, I talked around the subject ("It's hard to talk about something you're not supposed to talk about . . . ha, ha, ha . . . ."), giving no hint of my true feelings. Who knew what these people were capable of? I didn't feel like finding out.

Discreet Departure

Several weeks later I told the Bishop that I was moving out of the area and that I would no longer be around. I said my good-byes, gave my farewell speech ("Thank you for all the love you've shown me"), and departed from the Church. As far as anyone knew, I was still a good Mormon. But in my heart Brother Wishnatsky was dead.

Keep Silent or Speak Out?

What business is it of mine, I reasoned, to expose the strange religious customs of these people? I've walked away, and that's that. What a relief! My life is my own again. On the other hand, I asked, was it fair for the Mormons to recruit people into a religion and then suddenly bind them with blood covenants? The bait was salvation, but the hook was death and the fear of death.

Didn't I have a moral obligation to say something about these tactics? Thirty thousand full-time missionaries are in the streets pulling in 200,000 converts a year. Yet no one has an idea of what the score really is until he gets into the Endowment Room - and then it's too late. The Federal Trade Commission regulates commerce to protect the consumer against commercial predators. The Food and Drug Administration regulates the drug industry and food production. The Securities and Exchange Commission regulates the brokerage houses and the Federal Aviation Administration the airlines. The Interstate Commerce Commission regulates interstate commerce; the Federal Communications Commission the airwaves and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nuclear power - all to protect the public against those who would utilize economic power unfairly. On top of these administrative protections lie the product liability laws interpreted by the courts, all to shield us against those who would take our money and give us nothing in return.

What about those who would take our souls and give only terror in return? Shouldn't there be a truth-in-packaging law for them, too? Even suspected criminals are read their rights. What about the guileless soul, who perhaps has suffered a loss of hope, and is vulnerable to the salvation sellers? Doesn't he deserve a little pamphlet of disclosure from the missionaries along with the propaganda and the carefully-rehearsed speeches? Doesn't he have any recourse to get his tithing back when he discovers, with no forewarning, that he is in a death cult?

Perhaps, however, I thought, religion is not a fit subject for government regulation. In that case I felt personally obligated to publish the truth myself. On the one hand, I felt that Mormonism was no more to be taken seriously than a religious spoof on Saturday Night Live. It seemed to me a farce concocted by a salvation-minded P.T. Barnum. On the other hand, these people seemed very serious, and there were five million of them. They say the Mafia only kills its own and those who have made deals with them. Well, I was one of them, fully inducted and endowed. And it is hard to imagine that a Mafioso is bound under oaths any more strict than I had taken. I could shuffle backwards, grinning and bowing, and just fade away, my lips sealed tightly. Surely there were many who ended up this way. But if I published the truth about the pool of blood at the end of the Mormon rainbow, would I actually be endangering my own life, fantastic as that thought seemed?

Should I think twice before telling anyone that I could no longer be a Mormon - and explaining exactly why? I drove back to Princeton, dug into the records of nineteenth-century American history and discovered that the answer was "yes."

Holy Murder

Numerous firsthand accounts of the early days of Mormonism amply documented the truth that "holy murder" had indeed been practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These executions, carried out by a private police force known as the "High Police," took various forms in keeping with the temple oaths. Slitting the throat is the one most commonly mentioned. Presumably once this one has been inflicted, the others are no longer necessary. These ceremonial killings were described euphemistically as "saving" the victim, as in "Where is so and so? We haven't seen him lately." "Oh, didn't you hear? He got 'saved' the other night." "Fed him to the catfish" had its place as did the phrases "used him up," "slipped his breath," "put him out of the way," and "sent him over the rim." After the migration to Utah, the term "salt him down in the lake" came into vogue.

Just as the French have a great variety of terms for describing foods that are lacking in English, the early Mormons had many words for murder, reflecting their peculiar involvement with this craft. Invoking vengeance on the disloyal was known as "praying for our enemies." Killing them secretly was known as "not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing."

Joseph Smith taught his followers that to kill those who violated their covenants was praiseworthy in the eyes of God. The first endowment ceremony, he explained, took place on the Mount of Transfiguration, where Christ instructed Peter, James and John in the secret handshakes and then bound them with oaths of blood should they ever forsake their loyalty to Him. This doctrine appears frequently in Church writings, and is cited in the work Doctrines of Salvation written by Joseph Fielding Smith, Prophet of the Church in the years 1970-72. After coming down from the Mount of Transfiguration, the Apostles bound the other members of the twelve to loyalty on penalty of death as well. When Judas betrayed Christ, they killed him in fulfillment of their endowment oaths. An eyewitness reports that Joseph Smith "talked of dissenters and cited us to the case of Judas, saying that Peter told him in a conversation a few days ago that he himself hung Judas for betraying Christ . . . ." The Reed Peck Manuscript (1839).

The "Salt" Sermon

Anyone who has attended a Sunday morning service in a neighborhood Mormon chapel will recall the presiding officer, the bishop or one of his counselors, announcing the names of members who were being "called" to new positions or "released" from old ones. In each case it is requested that the congregation "signify by the usual sign" their assent to the changes. The sign given is the raising of the right hand. For those who have been through the Temple, the right hand is raised "to the square," for this is the position in which it is held when making covenants of blood in the Temple. In the early days of Mormonism, such a ceremony often indicated that the death squad was about to march. In 1838, for instance, when the Mormons were contending for the country around Independence, Missouri, Sidney Rigdon - Joseph Smith's second-in-command - held a meeting. "Mr. Rigdon then commenced making covenants with uplifted hands," wrote one eyewitness. "The first was that if any man attempted to move out of the country," anyone noticing this action "should kill him and haul him aside into the brush." In what became known as the "Salt Sermon," Rigdon declared that "the church was the salt, that dissenters were the salt that had lost its savor, and that they were literally to be trodden under the feet of the church until their bowels should be gushed out. He referred to the case of Judas, informing the people that he did not fall headlong and his bowels gush out without assistance, but that the apostles threw him, and with their feet trampled them out! He also said that Ananias and Sapphira, his wife, did not fall down dead as translated but that Peter and John slew them, and the young men, or deacons, carried them out and buried them." William Harris, Mormonism Portrayed (1841).

The idea that Christ taught His apostles to kill His enemies continued in the Church after Joseph Smith's death in 1844. In a Sunday sermon given in Salt Lake City in the late 1850's, Heber C. Kimball, grandfather of the current Mormon prophet, explained again that the apostles killed Judas in keeping with their endowment oaths. "It is said in the Bible," related Kimball, "that Judas' bowels gushed out, but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out." He declared his determination to enforce in Utah the same penalties that Peter and John had inflicted in Jerusalem. "I know the day is right at hand," he said, "when men will forfeit their priesthood and turn against us and against the covenants they have made, and they will be destroyed as Judas was." Journal of Discourses 6:125-126.

Kill Thy Enemies

The traditional Christian doctrine of "love thy enemies" in Mormon hands after passing through the blood rituals became "kill thy enemies." In Missouri in the 1830's, wrote Benjamin F. Johnson, a friend of Joseph Smith, "we were taught to 'pray for our enemies' that God would damn them and give us power to kill them." The first Mormon temple service ever in Kirtland, Ohio in 1836 turned into a spectacular cursing session. "They spent the day in fasting and prayer," records William Harris. "The fast was broken by eating light wheat bread, and drinking as much wine as they saw proper, . . . Smith . . . telling them that the wine was consecrated and would not make them drunk." Mormon elder George A. Smith, also present at the dedication, relates: "After the people had fasted all day, they sent out and got wine and bread . . . . They ate and drank and prophesied until some of the High Council of Missouri stepped into the stand, and, as righteous Noah did when he awoke from his wine, commenced to curse their enemies." Journal of Discourses 2:216. Heber C. Kimball continued the cursing tradition out in Utah. "Will the president that sits in the chair of state be tipped from his seat?" he asked a Sunday congregation. "Yes, he will die an untimely death, and God Almighty will curse him . . . . I curse them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . ." Journal of Discourses 5:133.

That the death orders came right from the top and that the practice originated with Joseph Smith is well documented. "I have heard the Prophet say," recorded Thomas B. Marsh, "that he would yet tread down his enemies and walk over their dead bodies." (Affidavit, Richmond, Mo., October 24, 1838) One of the original Mormons, John Whitmer, in his memoir of the Church records the following incident: "Smith called a council of the leaders together in which he stated that any person who said a word against the heads of the church should be driven over these prairies as a chased deer by a pack of hounds." John D. Lee, a member of Joseph Smith's bodyguard, reports:.

I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo by the Danites (the assassination squad). It was then the rule that all the enemies of Joseph Smith should be killed, and I know of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and his Apostles while the Church was there.

It has always been a well understood doctrine of the church that it was right and praiseworthy to kill every person who spoke evil of the Prophet.

John D. Lee, Mormonism Unveiled, 1891.

Assassination Theology

Brigham Young brought the same assassination theology to Utah that Joseph Smith had refined in Illinois. John D. Lee relates:

When the Danites - or Destroying Angels - were placed on a man's track, that man died - certain, unless some providential act saved him. . . . And I say as a fact that there was no escape for anyone that the leaders of the Church in southern Utah selected as a victim.

The Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court in the days of Brigham Young's rulership reports in his memoirs: "That the Danites were bound by their covenants to execute the criminal orders of the high priesthood against apostates and alleged enemies of the church is beyond question." R.N. Baskin, Reminiscences of Early Utah, 1914. In a court hearing held in 1889, Martin Wardell, superintendent of carpentry work for the Church for six years, was asked: "Was there anything in the oath or obligation which you took about apostasy from the Church?" Mr. Wardell replied: "Yes, you should have your throat cut and your bowels ripped out." Asked if he ever saw the penalty administered, Mr. Wardell testified:

Yes, sir, in the latter part of 1862, about twenty miles this side of Green River, upon a man by the name of Green. . . . three men comes up and they call upon this man Green; he was in his wagon and didn't come out. He was a little afeard. . . . they pulled the man out of the wagon by the coat and he stood on his feet, and he hadn't stood more than about three minutes, - until a man took him by the hair of the head, and the other cut his throat; and when he laid down they opened his clothes and took a belt off from him with $5000. When we commenced to make trouble about it, John W. Young [a son of the prophet] told us if we didn't shut our mouths they would serve us out the same and leave us for the wolves to eat.

The leader of the squad that slit Green's throat, one W. H. Dame, explained to Wardell that Green "had apostatized from the Church once, and he had apostatized again and gone to hell now."

The Chief of the Council of the Twelve, Orson Hyde, lead apostle of the Church, delivered an address one Sunday morning in the Salt Lake tabernacle intimating that Christ Himself employed hit squads.

I will suppose a case: that there is a large flock of sheep on the prairie, and here are shepherds also, who watch over them with care. It is generally the case that shepherds are provided with most excellent dogs that understand their business. . . . Suppose the shepherd should discover a wolf approaching the flock, what would he do? Why, we should suppose that if the wolf was in proper distance, that he would kill him at once. In short, he would shoot him down - kill him on the spot. If the wolf was not within shot, we would naturally suppose he would set the dogs on him - and you are aware, I have no doubt, that these shepherd dogs have very pointed teeth and are very active. It is sometimes the case the shepherd, perhaps, has not with him the necessary arms to destroy the wolf, but in such a case, he would set the faithful dogs on it, and by that means accomplish its destruction.

Now, was Jesus Christ the good Shepherd? Yes; what the faithful shepherd is to the sheep, so is the Savior to his followers. He has gone, and left on the earth other shepherds who stand in the place of Jesus Christ to take care of the flock. If you say the priesthood or authorities of the Church are the shepherds, and the church is the flock, you can make your own application of this figure. It is not at all necessary for me to do it.

Journal of Discourses 1:71-72.

The portrait of Christ carrying a rifle and the apostles ranged about Him sharpening their pointed teeth reminds one of the "whittling" squads Joseph Smith employed in Nauvoo. When someone came to town he did not like, the "whittlers" would silently surround him, take out their bowie knives, and begin carving pieces of wood. Without saying a word, they escorted the unwelcome visitor to the edge of town, trailing chips and shavings behind them.

Temple Oaths in Action

Brigham Young, as the Prophet of God, stood in the place of Christ. "President Young," testified James McGuffie, who received his endowment in 1856, "was God on earth; he got the word of God and gave it to the people." As Heber C. Kimball explained: "Joseph Smith was God to the inhabitants of the earth when he was amongst us, and Brigham is God now." When the Prophet had a particularly obnoxious command to give, he would preface it with "Thus saith the Lord," acting as mouthpiece for God and eliciting blind and fanatical obedience from his oath-bound minions. "These vile tools of the Church leaders," wrote John D. Lee, who had been one himself, "were keeping their oaths of obedience to the Priesthood, and were as willing to shed blood at the command of the Prophet or any of his apostles, as ever Inquisitor was to apply the rack to an offending heretic in the dungeons of the Inquisition." (p.274) Bill Hickman, the leader of one of the assassination teams, relates that "my boys . . . were of that kind that would kill father or son at the bidding of Brigham Young. This may seem strange, but there are plenty such in this country, that believe they would be doing God's service to obey, if Brigham told them to kill their own son, or the son to kill the father." Brigham's Destroying Angel (1872).

In April of 1854, Jesse T. Hartley, a Salt Lake attorney, was proposed for missionary work in a church conference. Brigham Young, however, had other ideas about him. "This man Hartley," he announced, "is guilty of apostasy. He has been writing to his friends in Oregon against the church, and has attempted to publish us to the world, and should be sent to hell across lots." Hartley, apparently, had discovered a few things about the Mormons that disturbed him and had decided to get the word out. At least this is what Brigham Young believed. A month later Orson Hyde, William Hickman and a company of men were camped at a place called Fort Supply when Hartley came through. "Orson Hyde, being the head of The Twelve," Hickman writes in his memoirs, "obedience was required to his commands in the absence of Brigham Young . . . ."

I saw Orson Hyde looking very sour at him, and after he had been in camp an hour or two, Hyde told me that he had orders from Brigham Young, if he came to Fort Supply to have him used up. "Now," said he, "I want you and George Boyd to do it."

Hickman and Hartley took a ride out of the camp to look for a team of horses. "Now is your time," Hyde whispered to Hickman as they left. "Don't let him come back." While crossing a deep stream, Hickman shot Hartley and his body disappeared in the water. Hickman returned to camp. "Orson Hyde told me that was well done: that he and some of the others had gone on the side of the mountain, and seen the whole performance." Mrs. Marietta V. Smith in her book, Fifteen Years among the Mormons, reports: "Not many days after Wiley Norton told us, with a feeling of exultation, that they had made sure of another enemy of the Church. That the bones of Jesse Hartley were in the Canons . . ." Judge Baskin, speaking with Hartley's brother-in-law, asked if it was true that the Mormons killed Hartley. "It was generally known," said the brother-in-law, "that Hickman had committed the crime." Asked why he did not institute proceedings, the man answered, "Don't press me for an answer to that question."

Orrin Porter Rockwell, another hit squad leader, received this cautious, yet adulatory profile, in The Improvement Era of 1941, the official Church magazine.

The Mormon people of Utah today are reluctant to form any definite conclusions about Rockwell. He had such admirable qualities that his neighboring ranchers, Mormon or gentile, regarded him highly. Yet in stark contrast to this was his willingness to kill outlaws and criminals when he thought they deserved it. He seemed to have no feeling for an outlaw; upon provocation he would shoot one. This method of dealing with outlaws, though an unwritten law of the early West, was so relentlessly enforced by Rockwell that it causes some of his co-religionists to frown upon him today.

Joseph Smith, for whom Rockwell originally worked, felt no such qualms. "He is an innocent and a noble boy," wrote Smith. "He was an innocent and a noble child and my soul loves him. . . . Let the blessings of salvation and honor be his portion." History of the Church V:6.

The most egregious case of Mormon murder was the Mountain Meadows massacre of 1857. The slaughter of a wagon team of 120 pioneers concluded with the holy circle that is customary when a group of Mormons administer a blessing .

They closed in the circle, so that each man placed his left hand on the shoulder of the man nearest him and raised his right hand to the square. Each of them promised before god, angels, and their companions in this circle, that they would never under any conditions speak of this action to anyone else or to each other, and that if any did so, he would suffer his life to be taken.

A U.S. Army officer, surveying the scene of this massacre, erected a cross upon which he carved the words: "Vengeance is mine," saith the Lord, "and I will repay." When Brigham Young visited the site and saw the cross, he studied the inscription and then, raising his right arm to the square, said: "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have taken a little of it."

Killing Apostates

As word of the fate of covenant-breakers and apostates began to spread in Salt Lake City, excitement arose, many Mormons feeling that, despite the Temple oaths, things were going too far. Brigham Young and his counselors, Heber C. Kimball and Jedediah M. Grant, sternly opposed such weak, unreligious sentiments. We have advanced beyond the point, Grant stated, where it is sufficient merely to pray to God to kill the enemies of the Church. "I want to know," he asked a Sunday congregation on March 12, 1854, "if you wish the Lord to come down and do all your dirty work?" What weaklings you are, he said. "When a man prays for a thing," he continued, "he ought to be willing to perform it himself. . . . Putting to death the covenant-breakers would exhibit the law of God, no matter by whom it was done - that is my opinion." Proclaimed Heber C. Kimball: "When it is necessary that blood should be shed, we should be as ready to do that as to eat an apple." Journal of Discourses 6:35. "To die," declared George Q. Cannon, one of the three most powerful Mormon leaders of the last decades of the nineteenth century, "is an easy thing: it is a light matter compared with apostasy." Declared Jedediah M. Grant, whose son became prophet of the Church in the 1920's and 1930's: "I not only wish but pray in the name of Israel's God, that the time was come in which to unsheath the sword, like Moroni of old, and to cleanse the inside of the platter." "I say," declared Brigham Young on March 27, 1853, "rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife and conquer or die."

Murder as Love: "Blood Atonement"

To allay the "whining," as Grant called it, of "the very meek, just and pious ones," the First Presidency of the Church, the supreme triumvirate of Mormonism, began to argue that enforcing the penalty on oath breakers was actually an act of mercy, not vengeance. A man who fell away from the Church after making covenants of faithfulness before God, was bound for hell. The blood of Jesus no longer cleansed him from sin. His soul could still be saved, however, declared Brigham Young, introducing a latter-day innovation in the age-old doctrine of human sacrifice, if he submitted to a ritual death at the hands of the Church. The Church had finally come full circle: murder was now an act of love. Brother Brigham pleaded with the assembled congregation:

Will you love your brothers or sisters when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? . . . that is loving our neighbors as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; if he needs salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. That is the way to love mankind.

Journal of Discourses 4:219-220 (September 21, 1856).

Asking for a show of hands, Jedediah M. Grant stated: "I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city. 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." Journal of Discourses 4:49-50 (October 1, 1856). These killings that disturb you, explained God's Prophet, Brigham Young, are actually the actions of men animated by the spirit of God and filled with his love and mercy.

We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him. Do you think it would be any sin to kill me if I were to break my covenants? Would you kill me if I break the covenants of God, and you had the spirit of God? Yes; and the more spirit of God I had, the more I should strive to save your souls by spilling your blood when you had committed sins that could not be remitted by baptism.

The Church has never abandoned this doctrine. In a pamphlet on "Blood Atonement" written in 1884, Elder Charles W. Penrose, later a member of the First Presidency, reiterated that "there are sins which men commit for which they cannot receive any benefit through the shedding of Christ's blood. Is that a true doctrine? It is true, if the bible is true. That is bible doctrine." Can such persons still be saved if the Church kills them? Are Brigham Young's sermons on blood atonement still applicable? "Do we need the same language now?" asked Elder Penrose. "I hope not; but if there was any need of it, it would be just as applicable now as then."

More than History?

The best evidence for the continuation of the practice of "sealing" members into the Church with blood covenants and then killing them for violating these covenants is the existence of the Temples themselves in the world of the 1980's. Had I not been terrorized in the Endowment Room, I would not have been impelled to investigate this bloody history. Had the Church repented of its bloody origins, it would no longer administer oaths of blood on the borders of the Washington beltway. If the Church had repudiated its murderous history, it would not be undertaking an unprecedented temple-building program around the world, aiming at having forty-one temples in full-time operation by the mid-1980's.

The Church that Joseph Smith established and that Brigham Young built into a small empire is the same church that exists today, only larger and wealthier. Of the millions of people who have passed through the Mormon Church in the last seventy years, how many have published a word about the blood covenants that has reached the general reading public? Surely there are a few as disturbed as I. Why such prevailing silence?

The words of John Hyde, Jr., a disillusioned Mormon of the 1850's, are as true today as they were 125 years ago: "When the Mormons talk so much of death as a penalty, it is not the idle threat of imaginary killing, but the strong word of merciless men. They never threaten what they will not perform, and fear of risking the penalty withholds many from apostasy." Mormonism (1857).

Anonymous said...

The Mormon Church Attempts to Conceal Temple Records for Adolf Hitler
© by Helen Radkey

translated-correctly.com™






On August 30, 1998, Don McAreavy, of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, wrote to the LDS Family History Library asking if LDS proxy temple work had been performed for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun. McAreavy specifically wanted to know if temple ordinances had been performed for Hitler and Braun on September 28, 1993, in the Jordan River Temple, Utah.

A response to this inquiry was sent to McAreavy on September 8, 1998. Typed on an official letterhead of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the letter was signed by Mae Dean Ashton. The address of the sender was shown as: Family History Library, 35 North West Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150-3400.


Ashton's reply read as follows:

Dear Mr. McAreavy:
Thank you for your letter of August 30th regarding temple ordinances
for Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun.

We searched the International Genealogical Index TM Addendum and found
no information listed for either. The enclosed printout is the closest
we could find and you will note that birth dates are 1836 and 1838.

No additional information is available.

Sincerely,

Mae Dean Ashton
Team Leader
Photoduplication Unit




The printout Ashton sent McAreavy shows LDS proxy ordinances which have been performed for Alois Hiedler or Heidler (Hitler), the father of Adolf Hitler.

In October 1998, McAreavy was able to obtain copies of LDS temple ordinance records for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun from Philip Roberts of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. These IGI (International Genealogical Index) copies reveal that Adolf Hitler was "baptized" and "endowed" on December 10, 1993, and "sealed" to his parents on March 12, 1994. These events took place in the London Temple, England. Robert's copies also show that Hitler was "sealed" to Braun on September 28, 1993, in the Jordan River Temple, Utah, and on June 14, 1994, in the Los Angeles Temple. Roberts sent copies of these records to Ashton.

McAreavy sent another mailing to Ashton on October 17, 1998, again asking her if she could locate information for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun in LDS files. On November 17, 1998, McAreavy mailed a double registered letter to Ashton. He reminded her that Roberts had sent documentation to her which seemed to indicate that the Mormon Church had done temple ordinances for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun. "Would you please be kind enough to verify if the information that Philip Roberts provided is both accurate and proof that temple ordinances were performed for Adolf Hitler," McAreavy wrote.

Ashton replied to McAreavy's November 17 letter on December 2, 1998. She again insisted that the [Alois Hitler] copies she had sent McAreavy with her September 8 letter were all that could be located in the IGI TM [Addendum]. McAreavy was informed that he could soon expect to receive a reply from the [Family History] Department Director.On December 29, 1998, McAreavy again wrote to Ashton. He requested the name and mailing address of the Department Director because he had received no communication from that person, as promised by Ashton. When there was no response to this request, McAreavy wrote directly to the Department Director of the Photoduplication Department of the Family History Library on January 25, 1999. McAreavy again asked if the Mormon Church had done temple ordinances for Hitler and Braun.

The following reply, again typed on an official letterhead of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, dated March 16, 1999, was sent to McAreavy from the Family History Library:

To Whom It May Concern:
Subject: Famous or Historical Figures

You recently wrote to inquire if temple ordinances have been performed
for a famous or historical figure. As a matter of policy, we respond to
such requests only when those making the request are directly related
to the person about whom they seek information.

It might be helpful to know that, as an institution, we have no control
over the names individuals submit to receive temple ordinances. However,
we strongly counsel Church members to submit only the names of those
persons to whom they are related. Furthermore, we believe that ordinances
performed in behalf of any deceased individual are valid only if that
person is worthy of and chooses to accept what has been done in his or
her behalf.

The Church spends a great deal of time, effort, and money to make
information available that helps not only its members, but all who are
interested in family history pursuits. You are welcome to use the resources
we provide. We hope you find satisfaction in doing do.

Sincerely,

Family History Department




In this impersonal communication to McAreavy, the LDS Family History Department clearly avoided taking responsibility for the discrepancy between Ashton's September 8 denial of LDS temple work for Hitler and Braun - and the IGI copies, supplied by Roberts, which seem to prove - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that this notoriously well-known pair have, indeed, had proxy LDS ordinances performed on their behalf.

At the time McAreavy made his initial inquiry to the Family History Library on August 30, there were multiple entries in LDS temple ordinance files which showed that Mormons have performed various rituals on behalf of Hitler and Braun. These records can still be accessed. Ashton gave McAreavy incorrect information. Was this a deliberate evasion of truth? What are the facts?

Adolf Hitler Converts to Mormonism

Current IGI TM Addendum temple ordinance entries for Mr. [Adolf] Hiedler (Hitler) show that Hitler was "baptized" by Mormons on September 30, 1993, and "endowed" on April 27, 1994, in the Jordan River Temple, Utah. This record was in the IGI TM Addendum at the time of Ashton's denial [to McAreavy of temple ordinance information for Adolf Hitler] on September 8. I obtained a copy of this particular record for Hitler from the LDS Family Search Center in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in downtown Salt Lake City on July 13, 1998, less than two months before Ashton stated that no such IGI record existed for Hitler.

If Ashton and her co-workers were not very efficient in their search for Adolf Hitler temple ordinance entries in the LDS genealogical computer system, the same could be said for their lack of thoroughness in locating the same type of records for Eva Braun.

Eva Anna Paula Braun, born in Munich, Bavaria, Germany, on February 7, 1912, was "baptized" by Mormons on October 16, 1964, and "endowed" on February 5, 1965, in the Los Angeles Temple. She had been "sealed" to her parents some time prior to 1970. This information is current and is easily accessible in the IGI TM Addendum, in which file Ashton stated that no information was available for either Hitler or Braun. These entries for Braun should have been found by genuine seekers. In this case, it seems these records may have been intentionally overlooked. Was it easier for McAreavy to be given inaccurate information rather than present him with any copies which he could possibly have used against the Mormon Church? Or are the staff of the Family History Library so poorly skilled at accessing their own computer files that they missed the entries in question?

In addition to the IGI, which is a huge database of names and vital information for multimillions of people, with an Ordinance Index attached, the other significant LDS genealogical file is the Ancestral File. In this family history archive, LDS ordinance records may be found attached to pedigree charts.

BAPTIZING THE HOLOCAUST
THE CURSE OF THE NEGRO


White and Delightsome


There are, currently, Ancestral File ordinance records which show Adolf Hitler was "baptized" on September 4, 1993, "endowed" on October 12, 1993, and "sealed" to his parents and also Eva Braun on June 14, 1994 - in the Los Angeles Temple. The June 14 sealing of Hitler and Braun is the same sealing which Roberts sent copies of to McAreavy and Ashton. These entries could once be found in the IGI. They have since been deleted, along with other entries for prominent Nazis. What is going on here?

Prior to adding the 1997 edition to the IGI, it seems that the Mormon Church, intent on preserving its public image, attempted to remove the names of well-known Nazis from the IGI files. Most of the IGI entries for Adolf Hitler; Mrs. (Adolf Hitler); Adolf Eichmann; Paul Joseph Göbbels; Hermann Göring; Rudolf Hess; and Heinrich Himmler, were quietly removed. Also erased were the records for Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Fascist Italy from 1922 to 1943 and ally of Hitler and the Third Reich.


amazon.com:


Mein Kampf




The Rise and Fall
of the Nazi Empire

But the deletion effort was botched. Some entries were missed, such as the ones still current for Hitler and Braun, in the IGI and Ancestral File. The IGI ordinance records for Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess, which correctly showed his place of birth as Alexandria, Egypt, were deleted - yet other IGI ordinance entries still exist for Hess, wrongly listing his place of birth as Germany.

Also missed were LDS ordinance records, which still exist in the Ancestral File, for Paul Joseph Göbbels and Hermann Göring. These entries, which include baptisms for each of them, may have been intentionally removed from the IGI files.

The LDS ordinance records, of other well-known Nazis, were apparently overlooked by Mormons during their IGI purge. These records are currently accessible [1999] . Included in this liberal list are: Reinhard Heydrich, "The Father of The Final Solution" - Hitler's plan to exterminate all Jews in Europe. Alfred Rosenberg, hanged at Nuremberg for war crimes; Ernst Röhm, once the thuggish leader of Hitler's Storm Troopers; and Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, * the famous Desert Fox of World War II.

In May 1994 and March 1996, from LDS genealogical centers, I obtained numerous Nazi IGI entries which have since been deleted. In this collection, are copies of the LDS records for Hitler and Braun that Roberts sent to McAreavy and Ashton, with the additional sealing of Adolf Hitler to his parents on June 14, 1994. I have IGI copies of all of the LDS ordinance records for Hitler which are currently in the Ancestral File - but no longer in the IGI. As well, my copies show another baptism for Hitler, almost identical to the one still in the IGI files under Hiedler (Hitler), with the same ordinance dates. But the deleted entry is listed as Hitler (Hiedler) Adolf, showing a birth date of 1889. The Hiedler (Hitler) entry shows a birth of 1891 - so they are different records.

A mysterious record for a Mr, Hitler, of Vienna, Austria, with date of death 1900, and showing a proxy baptism date of April 15, 1924, in the Logan Temple, Utah, is also no longer in the IGI files. Other vanished IGI entries are a sealing of Adolf Hitler to Eva Braun on October 19, 1993, at the Jordan River Temple, and a baptism for Mrs. Hitler (Hiedler) on September 10, 1993, and an endowment for her on March 17, 1994, also in the Jordan River Temple.

The Mormon Church has attempted to deliberately conceal LDS temple ordinances for Adolf Hitler. This first occurred with the disappearance of many of the IGI records for Hitler and other publicly-known evildoers of the Third Reich. Then - there was a second attempt to cover-up Nazi records when Ashton told McAreavy that no LDS temple ordinances had been performed for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun. Even when confronted by IGI temple records, for Hitler and Braun, by Roberts - those in charge of the Family History Department at the Family History Library, representing the genealogical arm of the Mormon Church, did not want to take responsibility for these records. Their implausible excuse was that they have no control over the names individuals submit to receive temple ordinances.

Like a slippery snake in the grass, the Mormon Church may have tried to dodge public criticism by denying its questionable proxy recognition of Adolf Hitler - the amoral and evil Nazi genius who was responsible for the terror and barbarism of the Third Reich and the loss of millions of innocent lives, before and during World War 11. But LDS ordinance records speak for themselves - Mormons have repeatedly claimed the unpopular Hitler. Anything stated to the contrary cannot alter this conclusion.

Deception is not the hallmark of a church with integrity. As the Mormon Church will eventually find out - even the most artful serpent can be choked by its own coils!

Continued...

* From: Oblivious6@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000
To: Nowsc@yahoo.com
Subject: Mormon Baptisms for Nazis

In your article on the Mormon church keeping records on ordinances done on
Nazis, you gave a list of notable nazis done, in which was included Erwin
Rommel, the Desert Fox. To set the record straight, Erwin Rommel was not a
Nazi, he never joined the Nazi party. Therefore he was not a Nazi.
Sincerely Joshua H. Behn

"The object of war isn't to die for your country...It's to make the other
bastard die for his"
-- General Patton
The Lyrics

Amazon.de





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mormons' Reply

An answer, of sorts, by the Mormonm Church.
See http://www.sltrib.com/1999/oct/10091999/religion/35861.htm . Or see here.

Another seemingly standard answer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other:
Secret Temple Ceremonies:

The Book:
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

Very Good Evidence!
Money and The Book of Mormon

See These References...
Search the Book Of Mormon

NEW!
By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

NEWER!
The Creation of the Book of Mormon

As Seen on Yahoo!
Matches Found For "Mormon" and "Metallurgy"

Caution: Critical --
Pre-Colombian Steel Mills

Critical Thinking: Mormonism

Page updated 2007-03-26

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
be said...

Not cool. Those things are sacred to us. That's not some kind of secret you're dragging out that you think we deny, that's part of a sacred ordinance. You can say your opinions, but don't desecrate my beliefs on my own blogs. Go somewhere else if you're going to write that.

be said...

And in case you're actually interested in discussion rather than just copying and pasting things you found on the Internet, only a portion of the things you pasted are accurate of the temple ceremony. And of course I'd prefer that portion remain sacred.

be said...

Anon,
Would you be interested in having some sort of real-time discussion? I'll give you my phone or IM if you would want to actually talk.

Anonymous said...

I think I have done a pretty good job of shining the light of truth on some of the dastardly deeds committed by Mormons and the LDS cult religion. Granted I have posted some of my opinions but most of my posts have been backed up with facts.
Bryant, you have to admit that some of the temple rituals are rituals that cult members have been doing for years. Only recently has the LDS omitted the blood oaths. It's frightening to say the least.

Anonymous said...

Note: I'm not the same anonymous from earlier.

I'm genuinely curious about how you would define an anti-mormon. Is it anymone who disagrees with LDS teaching or only people who reach a certain level of disgruntlement with the religion?

I could probably be considered anti-mormon, I guess. I don't want to stay at Marriot associated hotels because the brand is owned by a mormon. Why? I don't believe mormon teachings and actually find some of them to be harmful and well, atrocious. I don't want to financially support that. I don't verbally berate mormons. I don't insult the mormons I'm related to. I know there are positive things about the faith. But I don't see any positive aspects of mormonism that are unique to it.

Doesn't it ever bother you that the LDS chrch whent and did the exact same things that it claimed had corrupted the prevailing Christian religions of the world? They citicized others of re-writing church history, then turned around and did it themselves. How is that not hypocritical and how is the church not in a state of apostacy? Why doesn't that make you stop and think. How can you support your church when the only reason the mandate (later termed revelation) ending the ban on blacks in the priesthood only came about because the church was about to lose it's tax-exempt status. Doesn't it bother you that it only took God the Father a couple of hours to change his mind about the practice of polygamy and blacks in the priesthood (If you take into consideration that 1000 yrs here equals 1 day for God out by Kolob). Do you really think that a woman's highest calling is childbaring, where a man (also 50% of what it takes to procreate) has the wide world of talent open to him? Does that really make sense to you?

be said...

Anon #2: Thanks for being respectful, even if you disagree with the religion.

As for your questions, I don't really know about defining "anti-mormon". I personally think that there's a difference between not agreeing with something and being actively against it. Probably it'd be more for an individual to say if they consider themselves "anti" or not.

I'm not really sure what you mean by your first complaint. I assume the "re-writing church history" bit is about the Book of Mormon and/or continuing revelation, but I don't know how that is hypocritcal.

As far as the issues of gender roles and of blacks and the priesthood, I think you've applied your own reasons to those issues as though they were the Church's actual reasons. I don't think the issue is about God changing his mind at all, but rather about humans humbling themselves enough to accept his will. I don't know which of the societal issues of the late 70's are really what made Church leaders reconsider the issue of the priesthood, and with all due respect, neither do you. The point is that they did reconsider and eventually seek the Lord's will (which hopefully they'll eventually do with some of their current predjudices).

So, to answer the question that you should have been asking, no I'm not ok with some of the policies and/or traditions, but I believe in the Book of Mormon and in the visions of Joseph Smith, and in the principle of continuing revelation. Hopefully the latter will straighten out the other imperfections as time goes on.