Can anyone here help Smac

[_mocnarf]

I thought these were some interesting quotes that Smac posted on MAD. see:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208259444


Anyone here have an answer for SMAC ?

In Sally Denton's book, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857, we find the following passage (on page 105):



The notes for these two quotes (listed on page 259 of Denton's book) give a reference:



This book, published in 1910, is available for download from GoogleBooks here and is also available for online viewing here.

Here is page 8 of Gibbs's book:




Denton also uses these quotes in this article posted on AmericanHeritage.com.

I don't see either of the quotes Denton used in her book ("in an orgy of recrimination and rebaptism" and "hewn down").

I'd like a reality check here. Can any of you folks find these two quotes anywhere in Gibbs's book? Please use both the above links (this one to download the original book and this one to view the contents online).

Thanks,

-Smac

P.S. I have found a quote in the Journal of Discourses that is somewhat similar (see this reference (fn 40)):

[_beastie]

Here's another hewn down quote (this sermon has many jewels in it)

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_04/refJDvol4-42.html

TO KNOW GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE-

GOD THE FATHER OF OUR SPIRITS AND BODIES-THINGS CREATED SPIRITUALLY FIRST-ATONEMENT BY THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD



A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the

Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857.

4:215

Brother Cummings told you the truth this morning with regard to the sins of the people. And I will say that the time will come, and is now nigh at hand, when those who profess our faith, if they are guilty what some of this people are guilty of, will find the axe laid at the root of the tree, and they will be hewn down. What has been must be again, for the Lord is coming to restore all things. The time has been in Israel under the law of God, the celestial law, or that which pertains to the celestial law, for it is one of the laws of that kingdom where our Father dwells, that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life.

You are aware that when brother Cummings came to the point of loving our neighbours as ourselves, he could say yes or no as the case might be, that is true. But I want to connect it with the doctrine you read in the Bible. When will we love our neighbour as ourselves? In the first place, Jesus said that no man hateth his own flesh. It is admitted by all that every person loves himself. Now if we do rightly love ourselves, we want to be saved and continue to exist, we want to go into the kingdom where we can enjoy eternity and see no more sorrow nor death. This is the desire of every person who believes in God. Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, 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 or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the sheding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or women to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing; his language is left as it is for those to read who have the Spirit to discern between truth and error; it was so left for those who can discern the things of God. Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness.

Now take the wicked, and I can refer to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt, except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hands of their enemies, by the plague, and by the sword, why? Because He loved them, and promised Abraham that He would save them. And He loved Abraham because he was a friend to his God, and would stick to Him in the hour of darkness, hence He promised Abraham that He would save his seed. And He could save them upon no other principle, for they had forfeited their right to the land of Canaan by transgressing the law of God, and they could not have atoned for the sin if they had lived. But if they were slain, the Lord could bring them up in the resurrection, and give them the land of Canaan, and He could not do it on any other principle.

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 (in the last resurrection there will be) 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, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up-conquers death, hell, and the grave. 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. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, 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.

Regarding the orgy of recrimination and reformation - I don't know who used the exact phrase, but I think it's an accurate depiction of the climate of the period.

[_Runtu]

Looks to me like Sally was a little sloppy.

[_beastie]

This appears to be the closest statement on page 8

The preaching of blood atonement was accompanied by two years -- 1856-1857 -- of hysterical repentance called the Mormon "reformation." The larger portion of the "Saints" confessed their sins to the "block teachers," to the "ward bishops," or, as in many instances, to Brigham Young, to whom many of the sinful Saints went with their tales of iniquity. It was a time of confession, of the "renewal of covenants" by rebaptism, and the intensification of indescribable fanaticism, frenzy and violence.

But is the actual reference for a footnote for this page? I can't find any footnotes in either link.

One more note - the google book downloads as a PDF document, but for some reason, the search engine doesn't work in it. I searched for a word that was on the page right in front of me and it reported zero hits.

[_Runtu]

This appears to be the closest statement on page 8

The preaching of blood atonement was accompanied by two years -- 1856-1857 -- of hysterical repentance called the Mormon "reformation." The larger portion of the "Saints" confessed their sins to the "block teachers," to the "ward bishops," or, as in many instances, to Brigham Young, to whom many of the sinful Saints went with their tales of iniquity. It was a time of confession, of the "renewal of covenants" by rebaptism, and the intensification of indescribable fanaticism, frenzy and violence.

But is the actual reference for a footnote for this page? I can't find any footnotes in either link.

One more note - the google book downloads as a PDF document, but for some reason, the search engine doesn't work in it. I searched for a word that was on the page right in front of me and it reported zero hits.

No, the reference was for "8ff" meaning page 8 and subsequent pages.

[_beastie]

No, the reference was for "8ff" meaning page 8 and subsequent pages.

So to be certain, you'd have to read from page 8 onwards? Maybe later, not tonight.

[_Runtu]

No, the reference was for "8ff" meaning page 8 and subsequent pages.

So to be certain, you'd have to read from page 8 onwards? Maybe later, not tonight.

I searched the whole document, which isn't very big. No sign of "orgy" or "recrimination" or "hewn" anywhere. Looks to me like a sloppy citation, but as you noticed, the quotes, though not actually from the book (well, actually it seems more like a tract or pamphlet), were consistent with the tone. But it doesn't speak for Denton's scholarship.

[_beastie]

It will be interesting to read the reactions of the MADdites to her misuse of a source. When I discovered Sorenson's misuse of two sources, they accused me of making too big of a deal about it, and that even scholars are human who make mistakes now and then. Sorenson himself said it was a "tempest in a teapot" because plenty of other sources support his assertion... which they do not, and which was the whole point. Unlike Sorenson, Denton's assertion can actually be backed up through other sources. Sorenson misused a source to make an assertion which was entirely incorrect, and contradicted other sources.

[_cksalmon]

Note that fn 105 points one to the Gibbs's book "for details on the Reformation," not necessarily for the source of the phrases. It makes perfect sense to expect the phrases to be there, however, as the phrases are given and the (apparent) source follows a colon. I'm wondering if it may be a case of sloppy editing--perhaps the accidental conflation of two originally separate notes into one. Otherwise, it's a strange way to lay out a footnote.

It would be interesting to see if Denton typically captitalizes the first word following the use of a colon. It's perfectly acceptable to do so. If she doesn't typically do that, then the capital "F" in "For," following the colon, might support the conflation theory.

Man, I have too much time on my hands.

Best.

CKS

[_cksalmon]

Sally Denton used that phrase ("an orgy of recrimination and rebaptism") in a prior article published in American Heritage without indicating that it was a quotation. They appear to be her words in the magazine article.

"By the winter of 1856-1857, Young was tormented by defections in his ranks. Disharmony among the Saints, questioning Church leadership, and lack of faith was unacceptable. Brigham Young responded with his 'Mormon Reformation'. He had his Church elders sweep through the communities of the territory in an orgy of recrimination and rebaptism. He instructed, "back sliders were to be hewn down." His enforcement army, called the 'Danites', commonly referred to as the Avenging Angels, gained special notoriety."

http://www.exmormon.org/journey/journey_h.htm

CKS