Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

When we think about 19th century America, often it's, you know, cowboys, pioneers, that kind of image. But you actually look closer. Uh there's a much more turbulent reality there. Surprisingly violent, really, and it goes way beyond those standard western tales.

Yeah, that's a really crucial starting point, isn't it? The 1800s were just packed with huge social religious changes. And well, violence was unfortunately a pretty constant thread through a lot of American life back then.

And that's exactly what we're diving into. Today we're looking at a really intense and, um, complex piece of that history. The relationship was often violent between the Mormons in the 19th century and their non- Mormon neighbors. We'll be exploring things like mob violence, military actions, what they called frontier justice.

And for this, we're drawing on quite a few different things. We've got historical analyses giving us that broader picture, personal accounts, you know, firsthand stuff, and even a YouTube discussion that brings a kind of modern lens to it all.

Right. And our mission here really is twofold. First, we want to try and grasp the perspectives from both sides, the Mormons and the non-Mormons. What were their fears? What drove them? And second, we need to look into the theology. Were there ideas within early Mormonism itself that well might have shaped how they viewed violence? Okay, so let's start unpacking this. What was the general climate like in America when Mormonism was just getting started? Was it just violent out on the frontier?

It's so important to get this context. The violence involving Mormons wasn't happening in a vacuum. Uh like our sources show, early 19th century America was generally a pretty violent place. Some of that, yeah, it came from older English traditions. This idea that a man's honor was tied up in his willingness to use force to defend himself, his reputation.

Ah, okay. So, it wasn't just about like brute strength. It was tied to your place in society.

Exactly. And it's interesting because while English law was starting to lean towards this duty to retreat, you know, avoid a fight if you can, America was actually going the other way. By the early 1800s, American thinking legally and culturally was more supportive of standing your ground. You didn't have to back down, even if it meant using deadly force and self-defense. And this kind of legal shift. Well, it definitely created an environment where conflict felt more uh permitted.

So, a more confrontational attitude was sort of becoming the norm. How did this violence typically play out? It wasn't all like formal duels in the street, was it?

Oh, not at all. No, it really seeped into lots of different parts of life. Our sources mentioned just wild stuff in schools. Students at Princeton actually burning the library. Riots were coming at the University of Virginia. Public schools had huge problems with violence leading to closures. Even like Sundays in Philadelphia could just erupt into chaos, organized and spontaneous mayhem is how one source put it among young men.

Wow. That paints the picture of a really um unstable society. And you mentioned male honor earlier. Was that mainly a southern thing like we often hear?

You know, that's a common idea, but the sources suggest this code of male honor was really a national thing. It wasn't just the South. Across the country, men often saw violence as a well, a legitimate way to respond to insults, protect their name, assert their status, and this cultural background. It's really key when we start looking at Joseph Smith and the early Mormons and their conflicts.

Okay. Right. So, you've got this backdrop of widespread violence, this culture of honor, and then Joseph Smith comes onto the scene. What do we know about his own early run-ins with violence? Did that shape things for the early Church?

Well, Well, Richard Bushman, who wrote a major biography of Smith, he points out that Joseph's reactions weren't out of the ordinary for his time, his willingness to, you know, confront people who he felt wronged him, sometimes physically, that fit right into this cultural focus on honor, even though, yeah, he also talked about peace. One person in Kirtland apparently called him a pugnacious prophet. That description itself kind of hints at someone ready for a fight,

a prophet who wasn't afraid to mix it up. And there are specific stories from even before the Church was officially founded.

Oh yeah. Smith himself talked about times back in Palmyra, New York when he was young. He apparently whipped a man who was beating his wife.

And then there's another story involving his father's dog and a neighbor, David Stafford. That one ended with Smith whipping Stafford and like six other guys who jumped him.

Interestingly though, that second story, the more aggressive one, got left out of the official history of the Church later on.

That's telling, isn't it? Suggests maybe they knew how it would look.

It does suggest awareness. Yeah.

But we need to contrast those incidents with something really different that happened later. The tarring and feathering in Hiram, Ohio. I mean, that was incredibly brutal.

Absolutely horrific. March 1832, a mob drags Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon out of bed. They try to poison Smith, beat them both badly, then tar and feather them. And just tragically, Smith's adopted baby son died from exposure because of the attack. But, and this is pretty incredible, the very next day, Joseph preached to a congregation that included some of the men from the mob and he didn't, you know, immediately call for revenge right then and there. That lack of immediate retaliation after that. It's really striking.

It really is. So, you see these well seemingly opposite things in Smith's early life and how he responded to violence. How did his own experiences plus his role as prophet start to mold the early Mormon way of dealing with conflict?

Yeah, this is where it gets complicated because while you have moments of restraint like after Hiram, Joseph Smith also uh started talking about Mormons having a religious right to take vengeance on their enemies and even a theocratic right to form private armies. Mhm. Those kinds of claims mixed with his own, let's say, forceful personality really helped shape this distinct religious subculture. One that was operating inside this larger already violent American culture, but with his own justifications. His theological statements gave his followers a framework that well could be used to justify violence.

Okay, so let's dig into that. Those theological underpinnings, what specific revelation or teachings fed this idea of a right to vengeance or forming armies.

There was a really key revelation in February 1834. It's been described as basically a standing order from God to avenge enemies. It essentially said that earlier advice from maybe 1833 about holding back on vengeance. That was now lifted. The way they saw it, they now had divine permission to hit back against their perceived enemies.

Wow, that's pretty direct. A theological green light for revenge. Were there other things Smith said that kind of pushed this idea?

Oh, yeah. Later in Nauvoo 1843. He's talking to the city council about capital punishment. And he actually expresses a preference for things like shooting or uh throat cutting, spilling his blood on the ground. He even connected this back to some of Sidney Rigdon's fiery talk back in Missouri. And then at a big Church conference in April 43, Smith says something like he'd ring a thief's neck off if the usual justice system failed. And John L. Butler, who had been involved with the Danites, apparently took this to mean that, you know, sinners would literally have their heads cut off for their salvation. And these statements, they're right there in the Church's official journal history. So, it shows a real emphasis on forceful um retribution.

That interpretation by Butler is chillingly literal. And the fact it's in the official records, yeah, that suggests these views carried some weight.

Absolutely. And then you also have the Book of Mormon itself. It contains prophecies, language that could definitely be read as violent, particularly stuff about the Lamanites, who they believed were ancestors of Native Americans inherited America and helping build the new Jerusalem in Missouri. That's laid out in Doctrine and Covenant section 84.

So, you can imagine how non-Mormon neighbors felt hearing this talk about a promised land specifically for Mormons and their allies, plus prophecies about their own enemies being destroyed. That must have caused a lot of anxiety.

Oh, huge alarm. As early as 1833, folks in Missouri were writing in newspapers about being afraid of being cut off, having their lands appropriated by the Mormons. You know, this wasn't just abstract. theology for them. It was about their homes, their land, the power balance. By 1843, you even had federal Indian agents worried about some kind of grand conspiracy between Mormons and Native Americans to wipe out white settlements. Now, looking back, maybe those fears seem overblown, but they felt incredibly real to people on the ground then.

And Sidney Rigdon's big July 4th speech in 1838 sounds like it poured gasoline on the fire, right?

Without a doubt, Rigdon's speech is pretty much seen as a straight up call to arms against non-Mormons. He said they wouldn't bear it no more and any mob coming against them would face a war of extermination. He even threatened to take the fight to their homes, their families, essentially saying one side or the other would be totally wiped out. Yeah,

that kind of, yeah, it just cranked up the tension and fed that cycle of violence.

Okay, so you've got the theology, the fiery speeches, and then things start to get organized, right? Let's talk about the violence in Missouri in 38 and this group, the Danites.

Right? The Danites. They're really controversial part of this story. Joseph Smith's own journal, the scripter book, it describes them as a company set up to put to right physically that which is not right and to cleanse the Church of very great evils.

That wording itself tells you they intended to use physical force. And importantly, the First Presidency at the time, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, John Smith, they were all involved in organizing the Danites. So it clearly had backing from the very top Church leadership.

And they weren't just about defense were Okay, they took action.

No, it went beyond defense. Mormon groups, mostly Danites, carried out retaliatory raids on non-Mormon places. They burned buildings in towns like Millport and Gallatin. There also accounts of these secret Danite oaths in Missouri. Supposedly, if you betrayed the group, the penalty was death. It really paints a picture of a very organized, secretive group within the Church ready to use violence to get their way.

Sounds almost like a paramilitary wing operating within the Church. We also hear about Zion's camp earlier on. What was that about? How did that in

Zion's camp was back in 1834. It was basically a military-style expedition. The stated goal was to help Mormons who'd been kicked off their land in Missouri get back. Militarily, it didn't really achieve that goal. But Joseph Smith saw participation in it as like a key test for leadership. He actually said that experience, not just religious service, was why he chose the first members of the quorum of the twelve apostles in the 70. So again, it really highlights this literal Church militant idea in early Mormonism. Military style commitment was a path to religious authority.

And then later in Nauvoo, they formed the Nauvoo Legion. That sounds like another example of this Church militant idea.

Absolutely. The Nauvoo Legion wasn't just symbolic. It was a real army, a well-armed militia, and Joseph Smith himself was its commander, Lieutenant General. It was very visible symbol of Mormon power in Nauvoo, showing they could defend themselves and maybe, you know, take offensive action, too.

And we also need to touch on the Council of Fifty. Where does that fit?

The Council of Fifty was uh different, more overtly political, theocratic. It was set up by Joseph Smith and had these grand ambitions like setting up a future Mormon kingdom basically.

And significantly, this council authorized Smith to raise a huge volunteer army, like a 100,000 men.

Officially, it was for national goals like protecting Texas or Oregon. But still, it's also worth noting that some guys on the Council of Fifty had previously taken those Danite oaths. So, you see a continuity there. Individuals involved in the more militant side of things.

Let's shift to some specific specific acts of violence and the suspicion around them. The attempt on Governor Lilburn Boggs's life in Missouri in 1842. That's a big one.

It really is.

Boggs, remember, was the governor who issued that awful extermination order against the Mormons. He was shot badly wounded in his home. And suspicion immediately pointed towards Joseph Smith and his bodyguard, Porter Rockwell. Some former insiders, guys like John C. Bennett and Joseph H. Jackson, they actually publicly accused Smith of ordering the hit. There was even testimony from Orson Hyde, a top apostle who apparently said Smith had wanted another guy Newell put out of the way over some earlier conflict.

And Smith's reaction wasn't exactly to face the music, was it?

No. Instead of confronting the accusations directly, Smith basically went underground. He fled Nauvoo and hid out for a good chunk of 1842.

During that time, interestingly, he secretly married Sarah Anne Whitney. Meanwhile, Porter Rockwell, he did get arrested for the attempted assassination. He was eventually let go because they didn't have enough hard evidence But uh there are later accounts suggesting Rockwell himself admitted privately that he did it. Apparently even regretted not finishing the job.

This pattern of violence and alleged leader involvement, it seems to continue even after Joseph Smith is killed with this oath of vengeance in the temple. That sounds really significant and frankly disturbing.

It is very significant. Yeah.

Fairly soon after Smith's death in 1844, this oath gets added into the LDS temple ceremony. People actually covenanted. They promised to pray constantly for God to avenge the prophets’ blood, Smith’s and his brother Hyrum’s, on the whole nation for letting it happen. And they were told to teach this to their children, their grandchildren. This practice - fostering this deep grievance and desire for payback against the US government. It didn't fully stop until the early 1930s. And even then, hints of it lingered in temple rituals until 1990. That shows a pretty serious institutionalization of wanting revenge.

And then there's Brigham Young and his teachings on blood atonement. Another really controversial doctrine that seems to provide a theological justification for violence.

Yeah. Brigham Young taught that some sins were just too bad for Jesus's sacrifice alone to cover. For those sins, he said the only way to get atonement was for the sinner's own blood to be shed. He even talked about cases where people had been righteously slain for their sins, suggesting that kind of violent death could actually be a path to salvation for them. He claimed he'd seen scores and hundreds who needed that. And it's kind of startling, but as late as 1967, a major LDS figure Bruce R. McConkie wrote that blood atonement might actually be practiced again someday if the Church and state were ever combined.

That's a deeply unsettling idea. Are there documented cases suggesting this was more than just talk or was it purely theoretical?

Well, there are cases that make you wonder. There's the story of Jesse Hartley in Utah. He apparently started asking questions about some suspicious deaths, and wanted the Feds to investigate. Brigham Young then publicly denounced him, called him a vagrant thief and a robber, and said he ought to have his throat cut. Hartley was then kicked out of the Church. That kind of language from the top leader, especially with the blood atonement doctrine floating around, it's pretty chilling.

Which leads us towards one of the most infamous and tragic events in all of this. The Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857. This feels like a horrific convergence of some of the rhetoric and doctrines we've been talking about.

The Mountain Meadows massacre was absolutely horrific and it was planned. Local Mormon leaders, particularly Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee orchestrated the attack on this immigrant wagon train, the Fancher Party. The original idea was to make it look like Native Americans did it. So, they got some southern Paiutes involved and also had Mormon militia men dress up as Native warriors. After besieging the wagon train for several days, the militia leadership under orders from a higher up named William H. Dame decided to kill them all. They lured the immigrants out with a white flag promising safety and then just massacred them, men, women, and older children.

And the cover up afterwards, the secrecy, the alleged killing of anyone who might talk, the oaths, it all seems to echo those earlier patterns, even the temple oaths.

It really does. John D. Lee made the attackers swear oaths of secrecy, threatening death if they revealed the truth. And initially, the LDS Church leadership, Brigham Young included, flat out denied any Mormon involvement. They blamed it all on the Paiutes. It took later investigations, finding the bodies, for the real story to start coming out.

We should also quickly mention the Black Hawk War in Utah, running from about 1865 to 1872. That YouTube discussion we looked at brought this up, highlighting the violence tied to taking Native American land and culture.

Right? The Black Hawk War fits into that larger picture of Mormon settlement pushing out native groups, taking their land, their resources, their way of life. It followed earlier violent events like the Fort Utah Massacre. The war itself had lots of violent clashes, including the killing of a youth leader called Old Bishop. And that YouTube source also mentioned these accounts, potential witness accounts. claiming knowledge of other massacres like mountain meadows, wagon trains attacked, but then blamed on Native Americans.

It's just so critical looking at all this to try and grasp both sides. The non-Mormons, you can see how they'd feel threatened by the rapid growth, the very different beliefs, and yes, some of the aggressive talk coming from the early Mormon leadership.

Absolutely. Those fears non-Mormons had about the doctrines, about a possible Mormon-Indian alliance, about speeches like Rigdon’s, they were very real for them and definitely fueled the conflict. But on the flip side, the Mormons often genuinely felt persecuted, targeted just for their religion. And that feeling fueled their own sense of being right and believing they had to defend themselves, sometimes even striking first against what they saw as hostile forces about to attack them.

It's such a complex and often tragic slice of American history. Our deep dive today has really just uh scratched the surface. We've seen how the general culture of violence at the time, the specific actions and words of leaders and these particular theological ideas all kind of mixed together,

right? Creating an environment where these intense violent clashes could happen and did happen.

Yeah.

And you know, while the LDS Church today is very different in its teachings and practices, getting rid of the oath of vengeance is a huge example.

Yeah.

The legacy of these events, these doctrines, it's still something people grapple with and discuss.

So, as we wrap up this deep dive, maybe here's something for you, the listener, to think about.

How does knowing about this often violent history change or maybe challenge how we understand faith? community and violence, not just back then in 19th century America, but maybe even today. What are the dangers when violence gets tied up with religious belief? And how do communities, how do we all deal with a past that's complicated and violent?

Those are really important questions to keep thinking about. We definitely encourage you to check out the sources we mentioned, dig deeper yourself. There's always more to learn about this really fascinating and yeah, often difficult period.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.