“You don’t know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don’t blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born in the world. My voice is always for peace.”
Joseph Smith | History of the Church, 6:317
One of the central tenets of the Christian faith is the call to peacemaking and living harmoniously with others. The Apostle Paul, in his letters to the Romans and in the book of Hebrews, exhorts followers of Christ to “live peaceably with all men” and “make every effort to live in peace with everyone.” These admonitions, rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ, have consistently been a guiding principle for many Christian denominations throughout history.
The New Testament narrative exemplifies Paul’s admonition in Romans 14:19 to pursue peace and mutual edification in several ways:
Jesus’ Teachings: Jesus himself emphasized peacemaking and reconciliation throughout his ministry. He taught his followers to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, and forgive those who wronged them (Matthew 5:38-48, Luke 6:27-36). He also emphasized the importance of unity and fellowship among believers (John 17:20-23).
Jesus’ Actions: Jesus’ actions modeled his teachings on peace. He reached out to marginalized groups, including Samaritans and tax collectors, despite societal disapproval. He healed the sick, forgave sins, and ultimately sacrificed himself on the cross to reconcile humanity with God.
In the Epistle of Romans, Paul cautions his readers that righteousness is not a license to sin. The letter also contains several specific exhortations, such as to repay evil with good, to support and love one another, and to be obedient to civil rulers.
The Early Church:The early Christian community, as depicted in the book of Acts, prioritized unity and fellowship, sharing their possessions and supporting one another in times of need (Acts 2:44-47, 4:32-35). They also sought to resolve conflicts peacefully, as demonstrated in the Jerusalem Council’s decision to accommodate Gentile converts (Acts 15).
Paul’s Letters: Paul’s epistles consistently emphasize the importance of unity, peace, and mutual edification within the church. He calls on believers to avoid judging one another, to bear with one another’s weaknesses, and to work together for the common good (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 12).
Emphasis on Forgiveness:The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the importance of forgiveness, both in personal relationships and in the broader context of reconciliation with God. This theme is central to the message of the gospel and is reflected in the practices of the early church.
In summary, the New Testament narrative, through the teachings and actions of Jesus, the practices of the early church, and the writings of Paul, consistently demonstrates a commitment to peace, unity, and mutual edification. This emphasis on building relationships, resolving conflicts peacefully, and fostering a spirit of forgiveness and understanding, both in and outside the church, has served as a model for Christians throughout history.
The dominant theme of Romans 12 is sacrificial love—how believers express it and how we prove it by the way we live. The apostle Paul submits that a true Christian strives to love others sacrificially and authentically, including one’s enemies, but especially members of Christ’s body, the church. He closes the passage with a quick pep talk, listing several practical exhortations on demonstrating love to all people in every circumstance (see Romans 12:9–21). In this context, Paul states, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” (Romans 12:18).
.
We know from the Beatitudes that “God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9). Kingdom people are called to be peacemakers who sow “…in peace of them that make peace.” (James 3:18).
Achieving peace requires active effort, not passive acceptance. While many fight for their rights and freedoms, Jesus demonstrated an alternative path by sacrificing his own. This sacrifice led to our reconciliation with God, and through the Holy Spirit, believers can experience God’s peace within themselves. It is only by first experiencing this inner peace that we can then extend it to those around us.
We demonstrate genuine Christian love by doing everything within our power to live at peace with everyone. This is a tall order, particularly if we’ve been mistreated, but this is precisely what Paul has in mind, for he says, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil” (Romans 12:17) and “Do not take revenge” (verse 19). As the old saying goes, “It takes two to argue.” If we don’t fight back or repay “wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else” (1 Thessalonians 5:15), then the fighting stops with us. In a parallel encouragement, Peter teaches, “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing” (1 Peter 3:9).
Reminiscent of Jesus’ command to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44), Paul urges, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse” (Romans 12:14). The best way to deal with an enemy is to treat him with goodness and kindness in the hopes of winning him over for Christ (see Proverbs 25:21–22). We must leave the work of vengeance and punishing sin to God (Deuteronomy 32:35, 41; Ecclesiastes 12:14). Believers are called to “peaceful and quiet” living so as not to hinder or harm the work of the gospel (1 Timothy 2:1–4).
In Romans 14:19, Paul encourages, “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” (see also 1 Thessalonians 5:13). The writer of Hebrews affirms, “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone.” (Hebrews 12:14). The psalmist echoes, “Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.” (Psalm 34:14).
It seems that Joseph Smith and his associates did not universally accept this.
Founded in the early 19th century by Joseph Smith, the Mormon Church has been a subject of fascination for scholars and lay people alike, due in part to its unique doctrines and practices. However, a closer look at the church’s history reveals a complex relationship with the concept of peace, particularly in the context of its interactions with its surrounding cultures.
Smith played a significant role in shaping the church’s stance on peace and violence. Furthermore, the church’s history is also marked by the formation of private armies, such as the Nauvoo Legion, which was established to protect the church and its members from external threats. While these actions can be seen as a response to the persecution and violence the church faced, they also raise questions about the church’s commitment to peacemaking and living harmoniously with its surrounding cultures.
Mormonism’s Troubled History of Vengeance.
In the Bible, the Apostle Paul urges Christians to be peacemakers and live in harmony with all people (Romans 12:18, Hebrews 12:14). This emphasis on peace and forgiveness is a cornerstone of Christian ethics. However, the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), presents a complex picture when viewed through this lens.
The Doctrine of Vengeance
The Mormon doctrine of vengeance, as instituted by Brigham Young after the death of Joseph Smith, was not a formal doctrine but rather a cultural attitude and a set of practices rooted in the belief of blood atonement and retribution for the perceived injustices suffered by the early Mormon community.
Key aspects of this concept include:
Blood Atonement: This belief held that certain grievous sins, such as murder or apostasy, could only be atoned for through the shedding of the sinner’s blood. While not officially practiced, this idea fostered a culture where violence could be seen as a justified means of punishment or retribution.
Retaliation for Joseph Smith’s Death: Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders believed that Joseph Smith’s murder was a heinous crime that demanded vengeance. This sentiment fueled a desire for retribution against those perceived to be responsible, including state officials and dissenting Mormons.
The oath of vengeance was an addition made to the Nauvoo endowment under the direction of Brigham Young by 1845 in the Nauvoo Temple, soon after the 1844 death of Joseph Smith.
Oath of Vengeance: In the temple endowment ceremony, Mormons swore an oath to pray for God to avenge the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. This oath reinforced the idea that vengeance was not only acceptable but also a righteous act in the eyes of God.
Danites and Retributive Justice: The Danites, a secretive group of Mormon enforcers, were allegedly involved in acts of violence and intimidation against perceived enemies of the Church. While their existence and activities are disputed, they symbolize the potential for violence that existed within the culture of vengeance.
Rhetoric of Violence: Brigham Young and other leaders often used violent rhetoric in their sermons and speeches, further reinforcing the idea that vengeance was a legitimate response to perceived injustices. This language created a climate where violence could be seen as a justifiable means of protecting the Mormon community and upholding its values.
It is important to note that the Mormon doctrine of vengeance was not universally embraced, and many Mormons sought to live peacefully with their neighbors. However, the cultural attitude and practices associated with this concept had a significant impact on the early history of the LDS Church, contributing to conflict and violence in some instances.
The modern LDS Church has officially disavowed the practice of blood atonement and distanced itself from any association with violence. However, the legacy of this period continues to be a subject of debate and controversy among historians and members of the Church alike.
The Nauvoo Legion and Theocratic Militarism.
The Nauvoo Legion was a state-authorized militia established in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1841, primarily composed of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), then led by Joseph Smith. It was legally organized under Illinois law, but its unique structure and leadership raised concerns about theocratic militarism.
“Last public address of the Prophet Joseph Smith delivered June 23rd, 1844, just four days before he was martyred at Carthage.”
Theocratic militarism refers to the fusion of religious and military power, where religious leaders hold significant control over a military force. In the case of the Nauvoo Legion, Joseph Smith, as both the mayor of Nauvoo and the prophet of the LDS Church, held a dual role as the Legion’s commander. This raised concerns about the potential for the militia to be used to advance the interests of the church rather than solely for the defense of the city.
The Legion’s existence and Smith’s leadership fueled fears among non-Mormons about the growing power and influence of the church in Nauvoo. This suspicion contributed to escalating tensions and ultimately played a role in the events leading to Smith’s assassination and the expulsion of the Mormons from Illinois.
The Nauvoo Legion’s connection to theocratic militarism can be seen in the following aspects:
Leadership: The fusion of religious and military leadership in the person of Joseph Smith blurred the lines between ecclesiastical and secular authority.
The Legion’s existence and activities served as a powerful symbol of the growing political and military power of the Mormon community in Nauvoo.
Purpose: While officially intended for defense, the Legion’s large size and perceived potential for offensive action raised concerns about its true purpose and whether it would be used to advance the church’s goals.
Loyalty: The Legion’s primary allegiance was to Joseph Smith and the LDS Church, potentially creating a conflict of interest with the state’s authority.
The Nauvoo Legion’s legacy is complex and controversial. While it served a legitimate purpose in providing defense for the Mormon community, its association with theocratic militarism raised concerns about the separation of church and state and the potential for religious authority to be used for military ends.
Conflict and Violence in Mormon History.
The early years of the LDS Church were rife with conflict and violence. Events like the Mormon War in Missouri, the Haun’s Mill Massacre, and Joseph Smith’s assassination highlight the strained relationship between Mormons and their neighbors. While the causes of these conflicts were complex, they raise questions about how well early Mormonism aligned with the Bible’s teachings on peace and non-violence.
A Complex Legacy.
Regardless of one’s perspective, it is clear that the early history of the LDS Church presents a challenge to the Biblical ideal of peacemaking. While the Church has made strides in promoting peace and understanding in recent decades, its past remains a source of controversy and criticism. While the church has faced significant persecution and violence throughout its history, its responses to these challenges have not always aligned with the biblical admonitions to live peaceably with all men.
Mormon settlers and the Native American population.
The interactions between early Mormon settlers and Native American populations were complex and fraught with conflict, often stemming from competing claims to land and resources, cultural misunderstandings, and differing views on property rights and land use.
Key aspects of these clashes include:
Competition for Resources: As Mormon settlers expanded their settlements in the West, they encroached upon Native American lands and disrupted traditional hunting and gathering practices. This led to competition for scarce resources like water, grazing lands, and game, fueling tensions and conflict.
Cultural Misunderstandings: Mormon settlers and Native Americans had vastly different cultural backgrounds and belief systems, leading to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of each other’s actions and intentions. These cultural differences often fueled distrust and suspicion, making peaceful coexistence difficult.
Land Disputes and Displacement: The Mormon concept of land ownership and their desire to establish permanent settlements clashed with the more nomadic traditions of many Native American tribes. This led to disputes over land rights and ultimately resulted in the displacement of many Native Americans from their ancestral lands.
Violence and Retaliation: Tensions between Mormon settlers and Native Americans sometimes escalated into violence. Raids, skirmishes, and massacres occurred on both sides, resulting in significant loss of life and property. These violent incidents further exacerbated the existing animosity and distrust between the two groups.
Government Policies and Interventions: The U.S. government’s policies towards Native Americans, including forced removal and assimilation efforts, often worsened the situation. The Mormon settlers, who were often viewed as agents of the government, were sometimes drawn into these conflicts, further complicating their relationship with Native Americans.
Examples of specific conflicts include:
The Walker War (1853-54): A series of battles between Mormon settlers and Ute Indians in Utah Territory, sparked by disputes over land and resources. The Black Hawk War (1865-72): A prolonged conflict between Mormon settlers and Ute and Paiute tribes, again fueled by land disputes and cultural misunderstandings.
It is important to note that not all interactions between Mormon settlers and Native Americans were hostile. There were instances of peaceful coexistence, trade, and even cultural exchange. However, the overall relationship was marred by conflict and violence, leaving a lasting impact on both communities.
The Salt Lake Tribune: D. Michael Quinn was once among Mormonism’s most celebrated historians, lauded for his memory, work ethic, and charisma — even prompting predictions that he would become the official historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or one of the faith’s governing apostles.
…his compulsion to understand every detail of the Latter-day Saint past, starting in his teen years in the 1960s, put him on a collision course with his church. It would culminate in September 1993, when the Yale-trained scholar was drummed out of the Utah-based church for apostasy based on his historical writings about women and the priesthood, along with polygamy.
In September 1993, D. Michael Quinn, along with five other individuals, faced excommunication from the LDS Church for their critiques of church leadership and historical interpretations. This group became known as the September Six. Quinn remained a prominent figure in Mormon studies until his passing in April 2021.
“He may know more about the Mormon past than anybody alive,” Jan Shipps, a Methodist and a preeminent scholar of Mormon history, said in 2013. “He could have had a successful career at Brigham Young University if he had been willing to give up his research in LDS Church history and just teach.”
Patrick Mason, head of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University, echoed that sentiment Thursday.
“I’m not sure any person, other than maybe Leonard Arrington, will take more knowledge of Mormon history to the grave than did Michael Quinn today,” Mason tweeted. “In addition to his prodigious scholarship, he was genuinely kind and generous to all of us in the field. He’ll be sorely missed.”
D. Michael Quinn’s writings in “The Culture of Violence in Joseph Smith’s Mormonism” paint a complex and controversial portrait of the founder of the Mormon Church. Quinn argues that Joseph Smith not only condoned but actively encouraged a culture of violence within early Mormonism.
Key revelations from Quinn’s work include:
Personal Involvement in Violence: Quinn details several instances where Joseph Smith allegedly participated in or encouraged acts of violence, including physical altercations, property destruction, and threats against opponents. These accounts challenge the traditional image of Smith as a peaceful religious leader.
Revelations Sanctioning Violence: Quinn highlights specific revelations received by Smith that appear to justify the use of violence in defense of the faith. He argues that these revelations, along with Smith’s own actions, contributed to a climate of aggression and intolerance within the early Mormon community.
Theocratic Leadership and Danites: Quinn explores the connection between Smith’s theocratic leadership and the emergence of the Danites, a secretive group of Mormon enforcers accused of carrying out acts of violence against perceived enemies of the Church. While the exact nature and extent of the Danites’ activities remain a subject of debate, their existence raises questions about Smith’s role in fostering a culture of vigilantism.
Influence on Mormon Culture: Quinn suggests that Smith’s attitudes towards violence had a lasting impact on Mormon culture, shaping the community’s response to external threats and internal dissent. This legacy of violence, according to Quinn, has manifested in various ways throughout Mormon history, from the Mormon War in Missouri to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
A Complex and Controversial Figure: Quinn’s work does not portray Joseph Smith as a one-dimensional villain. Instead, he acknowledges Smith’s charisma, leadership abilities, and genuine religious convictions. However, by highlighting the darker aspects of Smith’s character and actions, Quinn challenges the hagiographic portrayals that often dominate discussions of the Mormon prophet.
It’s important to note that Quinn’s work has been met with both praise and criticism. Some scholars applaud his meticulous research and willingness to tackle difficult questions about Mormon history, while others accuse him of bias and cherry-picking evidence to support his thesis. Regardless of one’s perspective, Quinn’s writings offer a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion about the complex and often controversial legacy of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The virtues of peace, love, and forgiveness are at the center of Church doctrine and practice. Latter-day Saints believe the Savior’s declaration, found in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, that “blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” In Latter-day Saint scripture, the Lord has commanded His followers to “renounce war and proclaim peace.” Latter-day Saints strive to follow the counsel of the Book of Mormon prophet-king Benjamin, who taught that those who are converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ “will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably.”
Despite these ideals, early Latter-day Saints did not obtain peace easily. They were persecuted, often violently, for their beliefs.
This essay explores both violence committed against the Latter-day Saints and violence committed by them. While historical context can help shed light on these acts of violence, it does not excuse them.
[Deflection 1]In the first two decades after the Church was organized, Latter-day Saints were often the victims of violence.
[Deflection 2]Time and again, the Saints tried to build their Zion community where they could worship God and live in peace, and repeatedly they saw their hopes dashed through forcible and violent removal.
[Deflection 3]Vigilantes and mobs destroyed homes and stole property. Many of the Saints’ opponents enriched themselves with land and property that was not justly theirs.
[Deflection 4]After being driven from Missouri, the Saints were initially welcomed by the people of the neighboring state of Illinois and found peace for a time in Nauvoo. Ultimately, however, conflict arose again as non-Mormons and dissenters from the Church renewed their attacks.
[Deflection 5]But a mob forcibly expelled them from Nauvoo in September 1846 and then desecrated the temple.
[Deflection 6]The scope of this violence against a religious group was unprecedented in the history of the United States.
[Deflection 7]Nineteenth-century Americans were accustomed to violent language, both religious and otherwise. Throughout the century, revivalists had used violent imagery to encourage the unconverted to repent and to urge backsliders to reform.
[Deflection 8]Many people in the 19th century unjustly characterized the Latter-day Saints as a violent people.
They often lamented that they experienced religious persecution in a land that promised religious freedom.18 In the face of this extended persecution, some of the Saints, beginning in 1838, responded on some occasions with defensive—and at times, retaliatory—actions of their own.
IT’S NOT OUR FAULT.
EVERYBODY WAS DOING IT.
[Deflection 9]In 19th-century American society, community violence was common and often condoned. Much of the violence perpetrated by and against Latter-day Saints fell within the then-existing American tradition of extralegal vigilantism, in which citizens organized to take justice into their own hands when they believed government was either oppressive or lacking. Vigilantes generally targeted minority groups or those perceived to be criminal or socially marginal. Such acts were at times fueled by religious rhetoric.
[Deflection 10]The existence of community-based militias also contributed to this culture of vigilantism.Congress passed a law in 1792 requiring every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 years of age to belong to a community militia.20 Over time, the militias turned into the National Guard, but in early America, they were often unruly, perpetrating acts of violence against individuals or groups perceived to be opponents of the community.
Deflection is a tactic to avoid criticism or blame by shifting the focus or responsibility.
The statements on the LDS Church website seem to downplay the Church’s involvement in violence during its early days by focusing primarily on the victimization of Latter-day Saints. While acknowledging that violence occurred on both sides, the narrative emphasizes the persecution faced by the Saints and their efforts to find peace. This creates an impression that the Mormons were primarily victims, rather than active participants in the violence that characterized their early history.
Several aspects of the provided statements contribute to this impression:
Emphasis on Victimhood: The statements repeatedly highlight the violence and persecution suffered by the Saints, portraying them as innocent victims who were repeatedly forced to flee their homes and communities. This emphasis on their suffering overshadows any acknowledgment of their own aggressive actions.
Minimizing Mormon Violence: While acknowledging that Mormons sometimes used violent language, the statements downplay the actual acts of violence committed by them. The phrase “unjustly characterized as a violent people” seems to dismiss any criticism of the Church’s involvement in violent conflicts.
Contextualizing Violence: By mentioning the widespread use of violent language in 19th-century America, the statements attempt to normalize the Mormon’s own violent rhetoric and actions, suggesting that they were simply following the norms of the time.
Portraying Violence as Defensive: The statements imply that any violence committed by Mormons was purely defensive, a response to attacks from outsiders. However, historical evidence suggests that Mormons were sometimes the aggressors, instigating conflicts or retaliating disproportionately.
The LDS Church closing paragraph from the above summary begins with this sentence: “Throughout the Church’s history, Church leaders have taught that the way of Christian discipleship is a path of peace.”
This is simply not true.
By presenting a one-sided narrative that focuses on the victimization of the Saints, the LDS Church website seems to be minimizing its own role in the violence that marked its early history. While acknowledging that violence occurred on both sides is important, the statements could provide a more balanced and nuanced account by acknowledging the Church’s own involvement in these conflicts and addressing the complex motivations behind them.
The standard LDS historical narrative emphasizes the faith and tribulations of humble settlers and displaced immigrants. However, a closer examination of early church history reveals that the saints themselves were often instigators and aggressors in both action and theology. Even Joseph Smith’s recently introduced LDS scripture, the Book of Mormon, reads more similar in tone to the vengeful Old Testament than the new covenant of a forgiving Christ, with epic battles, religious conflict, cataclysmic destructions, as well as genocide and many other instances of violent death.
LDS history and doctrines exhibit a theme of militancy and righteous persecution, which fostered frontier violence and doctrines, including Brigham Young’s doctrine of blood atonement and oath of vengeance upon the U.S. government for the assassination of the prophet. The strong theocratic (government ruled by religion) philosophies of Joseph and Brigham furthered violent Mormon culture. Mormons violated territorial boundaries and peace agreements, championed Zionist ideals in fiery speeches, threatened non-Mormons, and boasted of their regional political power.
In conclusion, the standard narrative of early Mormon history as a tale of persecuted pioneers struggling for survival and religious freedom is incomplete. A deeper dive into historical records and doctrines reveals a more complex and unsettling truth: the early Mormon community, under the leadership of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, embraced a culture of militancy, violence, and vengeance. This undercurrent of aggression, intertwined with theocratic aspirations, contributed to conflicts with neighboring communities and the federal government, ultimately shaping the turbulent early years of the LDS Church.
While modern Mormonism has largely distanced itself from this violent past, it’s crucial to acknowledge and understand this history. By confronting these uncomfortable truths, we can gain a better understanding of the forces that shaped the early Mormon community and its relationship with the broader American society. This understanding can foster a more honest and inclusive dialogue about the complexities of faith, identity, and violence within the context of religious history.