A Study In Scarlet...

[_jon]

Here is the Mormon Defense League's judgement of the specific content of Doyle's 'Study In Scarlet' that relates to Mormon's.

Doyle paints 19th-century Utah as a totalitarian police state where the slightest dissension from orthodoxy is punishable by death, refusal to marry is grounds for personal visits and threats from Brigham Young, guards with license to kill make escape physically impossible, women were forced into repugnant marriages, murders are carried out by officials with no justification or consequence, passing women were kidnapped and forced into polygamy, enforcers have almost supernatural powers to terrorize dissenters, and on and on. All of these points are not merely distortions–they are completely false.

Was Doyle's portayal 'completely false' or is the Mormon Defense League overstating the level of discrepancy?

[_The Nehor]

Here is the Mormon Defense League's judgement of the specific content of Doyle's 'Study In Scarlet' that relates to Mormon's.

Doyle paints 19th-century Utah as a totalitarian police state where the slightest dissension from orthodoxy is punishable by death, refusal to marry is grounds for personal visits and threats from Brigham Young, guards with license to kill make escape physically impossible, women were forced into repugnant marriages, murders are carried out by officials with no justification or consequence, passing women were kidnapped and forced into polygamy, enforcers have almost supernatural powers to terrorize dissenters, and on and on. All of these points are not merely distortions–they are completely false.

Was Doyle's portayal 'completely false' or is the Mormon Defense League overstating the level of discrepancy?

I would suggest reading "Wife No. 19". Ann Eliza's explicit purpose was to vilify the Mormons of that same period. Yet in the book she speaks of her and her friends in public chatting about how polygamy seemed weird and even repugnant to them and jesting about the foibles of church leaders. No mention of punishment for it. No deep-seated fear of being caught. Oh, Ann Eliza goes in depth about how tyrannical everything was but seems to forget all that when she starts telling first-hand accounts of her own life. It's almost as if this horrific oppression didn't influence her life at all for some reason.

I wonder why.

[_Yoda]

Here is the Mormon Defense League's judgement of the specific content of Doyle's 'Study In Scarlet' that relates to Mormon's.

Doyle paints 19th-century Utah as a totalitarian police state where the slightest dissension from orthodoxy is punishable by death, refusal to marry is grounds for personal visits and threats from Brigham Young, guards with license to kill make escape physically impossible, women were forced into repugnant marriages, murders are carried out by officials with no justification or consequence, passing women were kidnapped and forced into polygamy, enforcers have almost supernatural powers to terrorize dissenters, and on and on. All of these points are not merely distortions–they are completely false.

Was Doyle's portayal 'completely false' or is the Mormon Defense League overstating the level of discrepancy?

I think that what the MDL has effectively done is create a straw man. Were the situations as militant as stated in the above paragraph? No, they were not.

Are there, however, some shocking bits of Church history regarding these topics that the Church would like to keep buried? Yes.

There was a particularly horrifying incident recorded which KA posted a thread on. I'll see if I can find it. A young man and young woman were in love, and he proposed marriage. The bishop, however, wanted the woman as a plural wife of his own. The woman refused the marriage proposal of the bishop, and stated that she would only marry the young man she loved. This rogue bishop sent several dainties after the young man. They beat him and castrated him. The young man went mad. Brigham Young sanctioned the marriage between the young woman and the bishop, stating that "the young man now has no further need for a wife in his current condition." To my knowledge, the bishop was never disciplined in any way by the Church or by the law for his actions.

Another huge strike against the Church during BY's era is the act of blood atonement, which did exist. The penalties which are no longer a part of the temple ceremony are a symbol of the blood atonement covenant all members take upon themselves regarding not revealing anything they see in the temple.

There is also the tacit dismissal of wrong-doing by Brigham Young when he did find out about MMM. I don't believe that he ordered the massacre, but it was obvious by his actions that the death of the Facher party caused him little concern. I also hold him, at least partially responsible, because of the way he led the people. They were constantly reminded of Joseph's death, and sure that any newcomers were going to siege the Saints. Yes, there was a valid concern following the torment the Saints suffered at Winter Quarters. I'm not denying that. However, it was clear that the massacre was a result of mass hysteria on the part of the Saints who were there....who had been used to obeying orders from BY, and knew what BY expected.

[_Daniel Peterson]

They are completely false.

There was a particularly horrifying incident recorded which KA posted a thread on. I'll see if I can find it.

Please do.

The tale needs to be examined.

Another huge strike against the Church during BY's era is the act of blood atonement, which did exist.

No it didn't.

The penalties which are no longer a part of the temple ceremony are a symbol of the blood atonement covenant all members take upon themselves regarding not revealing anything they see in the temple.

No they're not.

There is also the tacit dismissal of wrong-doing by Brigham Young when he did find out about MMM. I don't believe that he ordered the massacre, but it was obvious by his actions that the death of the Facher party caused him little concern.

That's not obvious to me.

What have you read on this topic? Juanita Brooks? Gene Sessions? Thomas Alexander? Walker/Turley/Leonard's Massacre at Mountain Meadows?

I also hold him, at least partially responsible, because of the way he led the people. They were constantly reminded of Joseph's death, and sure that any newcomers were going to siege the Saints. Yes, there was a valid concern following the torment the Saints suffered at Winter Quarters. I'm not denying that. However, it was clear that the massacre was a result of mass hysteria on the part of the Saints who were there....who had been used to obeying orders from BY, and knew what BY expected.

I don't think any of this played a role in the massacre. (See the work of the above authors, for example.) I also don't think it's even true.

I can see, Liz, why you have such a low opinion of Brigham Young. Fortunately, your low opinion is based on historical falsehoods and distortions.

[_Yoda]

Dan-

First of all, thank you for taking the time to address my points. I really hope that you can give me some insight on these issues because they have bothered me for quite some time.

I would like to deal with the castration episode first. I am willing to concede that I am not well-read on the MMM, and that there are some grave errors in my prior sources and impressions. Most of what I have read regarding MMM has been online snippets, and I do not have sources in front of me.

I did, however, find the thread, and the source, for the castration incident, and would like to deal with that first.

This is the link to the thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2472&hilit=castrated

Specifically, this is the story, which was actually posted by Steuss, who doesn't post here much anymore. He included his source:

"Warren Snow was Bishop of the Church at Manti, San Pete County, Utah. He had several wives, but there was a fair, buxom young woman in the town that Snow wanted for a wife. He made love to her with all his powers, went to parties where she was, visited her at her home, and proposed to make her his wife. She thanked him for the honor offered, but told him she was then engaged to a young man, a member of the Church, and consequently could not marry the old priest. This was no sufficient reason to Snow. He told her it was the will of God that she should marry him, and she must do so; that the young man could be got rid of, sent on a mission or dealt with in some way so as to release her from her engagement--that, in fact, a promise made to the young man was not binding, when she was informed that it was contrary to the wishes of the authorities.
The girl continued obstinate. The "teachers" of the town visited her and advised her to marry Bishop Snow. Her parents, under the orders of the Counselors of the Bishop, also insisted that their daughter must marry the old man. She still refused. Then the authorities called on the young man and directed him to give up the young woman. This he steadfastly refused to do. He was promised Church preferment, celestial rewards, and everything that could be thought of--all to no purpose. He remained true to his intended, and said he would die before he would surrender his intended wife to the embraces of another.
This unusual resistance of authority by the young people made Snow more anxious than ever to capture the girl. The young man was ordered to go on a mission to some distant locality, so that the authorities would have no trouble in effecting their purpose of forcing the girl to marry as they desired. But the mission was refused by the still contrary and unfaithful young man.
It was then determined that the rebellious young man must be forced by harsh treatment to respect the advice and orders of the Priesthood. His fate was left to Bishop Snow for his decision. He decided that the young man should be castrated; Snow saying, "When that is done, he will not be liable to want "

This is from "THE LIFE AND CONFESSIONS OF THE LATE Mormon BISHOP, JOHN D. LEE; ALSO THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE HORRIBLE BUTCHERY KNOWN AS THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE" (How's that for a title). It is taken from page 285.

Kimberly Ann also added this source and narrative:

Thomas Lewis was the young man who was castrated. Quinn writes about him on pages 250-251 of his book, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Here's an excerpt:

"In May 1857, Bishop Warren S. Snow's counselor wrote that twenty-four year old Thomas Lewis 'has now gone crazy' after being castrated by Bishop Snow for an undisclosed sex crime. When informed of Snow's action, Young said, 'I feel to sustain him.' "

It appears Young didn't have much of a problem sustaining a Bishop who took it upon himself to castrate a young rival for a beautiful girl's affection. The girl apparently married Bishop Snow, as it wasn't much use marrying poor Thomas after the bishop castrated him.

I must have read about the castration in Quinn's book and Abane's book, also, as I have both. I also have the book by Lee, though I'm not certain about the credibility of his account.

That's all I have so far. I await further knowledge from Blixa. (Blixa, I'm sorry about your dental troubles. I hope you feel better soon.)

KA

Any information you have on this would be most helpful to me, Dan.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Any information you have on this would be most helpful to me, Dan.

I'm somewhat aware of the story, but have no specific information on it. I'll have to check.

My faith doesn't, of course, rest on the sinlessness of bishops, whether historically or in the present. I've been a bishop myself, and I lay no claim to moral perfection.

So if this turns out to be an essentially true story, that will be sad but not faith-destroying.

I do, however, take strong issue with any suggestion that such a story would convey the fundamental atmosphere of nineteenth-century Utah. I don't know of any serious historian of the period, Mormon or non-Mormon (with the possible exception of Mike Quinn), who would suggest such a thing.

[_Yoda]

Any information you have on this would be most helpful to me, Dan.

I'm somewhat aware of the story, but have no specific information on it. I'll have to check.

My faith doesn't, of course, rest on the sinlessness of bishops, whether historically or in the present. I've been a bishop myself, and I lay no claim to moral perfection.

So if this turns out to be an essentially true story, that will be sad but not faith-destroying.

I do, however, take strong issue with any suggestion that such a story would convey the fundamental atmosphere of nineteenth-century Utah. I don't know of any serious historian of the period, Mormon or non-Mormon (with the possible exception of Mike Quinn), who would suggest such a thing.

The story does not shake my faith in the gospel, and it does not necessarily convince me of any type of fundamental 19th Century Utah atmosphere.

It does, however, influence my opinion of Brigham Young. As horrific as the bishop's act was, for the prophet to sustain such an act is just as horrific, if not moreso.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The story does not shake my faith in the gospel, and it does not necessarily convince me of any type of fundamental 19th Century Utah atmosphere.

It does, however, influence my opinion of Brigham Young. As horrific as the bishop's act was, for the prophet to sustain such an act is just as horrific, if not moreso.

I wonder whether it's true.

The source from which the story is quoted doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

[_Yoda]

Dan-

You stated that blood atonement never occurred. Are you familiar with this case, and are you stating that it is untrue?

"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."( Confessions of John D. Lee, Photo-reprint of 1877 edition, pages 282-283)

[_Yoda]

The story does not shake my faith in the gospel, and it does not necessarily convince me of any type of fundamental 19th Century Utah atmosphere.

It does, however, influence my opinion of Brigham Young. As horrific as the bishop's act was, for the prophet to sustain such an act is just as horrific, if not moreso.

I wonder whether it's true.

The source from which the story is quoted doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Blixa has some additional documentation she is looking up for me. Apparently, it involves an interview with someone who knew the young man who was castrated.