Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: A Discussion — Context and Discussion

(0 User reviews) 324

In Category - Theology

Authors: Smith, Joseph Fielding, 1876-1972, Evans, R. C. (Richard C.), 1861-1921 Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2015 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: Latter Day Saints; Atonement; Latter Day Saint churches -- Doctrines; Marriage -- Religious aspects -- Mormon Church; Polygamy -- Religious aspects -- Mormon Church Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 39,877

Reading time 174 min

Text sections 4

Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: A Discussion — Context and Discussion can be approached with a clearer sense of reading commitment from its source measurements: 39,877 words, 2 hr 54 min estimated reading time, and 4 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 22.2 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Latter Day Saints,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #50535

A 1905 correspondence between Joseph F. Smith Jr. (LDS) and R. C. Evans (Reorganized LDS) debating blood atonement and plural marriage origins, using affidavits, manuscript records, and witness testimony to argue doctrinal authority.

Editorial Edition Score 4.5/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg50535

Read the Text

Young was in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet never had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the martyrdom Brigham Young was on a mission away from home. If this is the inference you wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false.

It appears from the actions of many of those who fight the Latter-day Saints, that they fully realize their inability to successfully oppose the doctrines of the Church with truth as a weapon of attack, and, therefore, resort to falsehood, vilification and abuse, attempting to blind those who are not acquainted with the facts. The doctrine of the Church has survived all such onslaughts and continues to spread throughout the earth, as a witness against those who have adopted such base methods for its overthrow. It will continue to spread, bless mankind and prepare all who accept it, and follow its teachings in righteousness, for an inheritance in the kingdom of God.

The Reorganite ministers are generally in the front rank among those who oppose the Church and resort to tactics of a doubtful character. They travel from place to place, never losing an opportunity in private, on the rostrum or through the press, to "explain the radical difference" between their organization and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and in denouncing "the Utah Mormon and his iniquities." On such occasions they will quote garbled and isolated extracts from sermons and from writings by Elders of the Church, taking particular pains to cover up the context in order to prejudice the uninformed mind. In this way many a harmless, inoffensive passage has been made to do great execution in some quarters and among a certain class. Nor is this all. Nearly every crime that was committed within a thousand miles of Utah in early days and many that were invented out of whole cloth, are brought to bear against the "dreadful Mormons," the Church and the Gospel, that they may be stigmatized and made to appear vile and hateful before the world. So much of their time is spent in this way that they can surely have but little left in which to tell the world what they themselves believe.

No reason except that of misrepresentation and jealousy can be assigned for actions of this kind. These men oppose the truth in a spirit of jealousy and to cover up their own false position, and by such an attitude prove that they are ashamed of their own faith, being conscious of its weakness.

The supplement following the correspondence is composed of a number of affidavits and other testimony bearing on the subjects under discussion, which, it is hoped, will be of interest and perhaps of value to the reader.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 5, 1905.

1. As I did not receive a copy of the _Toronto Star_ I cannot positively say that my article appeared in full, but if it did not Mr. Evans is still without excuse for not considering the _entire matter_ for he received personally a duplicate copy of the article sent the _Star_ which contained those portions he has failed to include in his "entire matter" in the _Zion's Ensign_.

MR. R. C. EVANS' INTERVIEW IN THE TORONTO, CANADA, "DAILY STAR," JAN. 28, 1905

LATTER-DAY SAINT VISITING TORONTO--MR. R. C. EVANS, WHO IS PROMOTING THE GROWTH OF HIS CHURCH IN CANADA, NOT A BELIEVER IN POLYGAMY--DENOUNCES THE UTAH MORMONS.

The name Mormon does not please Toronto's six hundred baptized Latter-day Saints, not to mention the fifty thousand others scattered over the globe.

This fact was emphasized today, when R. C. Evans, one of the three members of the Presidency, explained the radical difference between the two denominations. Mr. Evans, who reached Toronto a few days ago to spend a month here, denounces the "Utah Mormon and his iniquities."

"We do not believe in polygamy, blood atonement, and kindred evils," he said to the _Star_ last night at 142 Peter street, where he is visiting, "They are an abomination to the Lord. The term Mormon is offensive to us, because it is associated in the public mind with the practices that I have specified. The other night, while I was holding a service here, four Utah Elders came to me. I referred to polygamy, and they defended it. 'We endorse it,' they told me, 'but we don't practice it.' Three women were with them, and I said to one, 'Do you believe in polygamy?' 'I do,' she replied, 'and I know that God will punish the United States for prohibiting it.' I understand that there are five Utah elders in Toronto at the present time, and in addresses here I will expose polygamy and blood atonement."

Continue Reading →

The pamphlet opens with a pointed epigraph from John Taylor—"To correct misrepresentation, we adopt self representation"—framing the entire exchange as a defensive rebuttal. The correspondence was triggered by an interview R. C. Evans gave to the Toronto Daily Star on January 28, 1905, which Joseph F. Smith Jr. considered a willful misrepresentation of Latter-day Saint doctrines. Smith’s first reply appeared as an open letter in the same newspaper less than a month later, and the full chain of four communications is reproduced here, along with a supplement of affidavits and other supporting documents.

The Structure of a Public Disputation

The work is not a treatise but a printed debate, preserving the epistolary form of the original exchange. Smith’s open letter is followed by Evans’s personal reply, then Smith’s rejoinder, and finally Evans’s closing letter. The editor notes that portions of Smith’s first letter were purposely suppressed when the Zion’s Ensign published the correspondence, while Evans’s side appeared in full. This editorial complaint underscores the pamphlet’s function as a corrective document, intended to restore what Smith saw as a deliberately incomplete record.

Witness Testimony as Evidence

Smith draws heavily on depositions from the Temple Lot suit, quoting Jason W. Briggs and James Whitehead on the early Nauvoo practice of sealing—a term used before plural marriage became common. Briggs testified that sealing was understood as binding a woman to a man “for eternity,” and Whitehead confirmed an ordinance for sealing as early as 1842 or 1843. Smith also cites Sidney Rigdon’s 1845 letter in The Messenger and Advocate, where Rigdon blamed the Smiths for introducing plural marriage and warned it led to their deaths. These witnesses, Smith argues, were founders of the Reorganized Church, lending weight to his case.

Manuscript Records and the Prophet’s Own Words

Smith reproduces a passage from Joseph Smith’s manuscript record of October 5, 1843, in which the Prophet stated he held the keys to the doctrine of plurality of wives and that no man should have more than one wife “unless the Lord directs otherwise.” He also cites a Bible at the Historian’s office containing the record of Joseph Smith’s marriage to Melissa Lott on September 20, 1843, performed with Hyrum Smith’s sanction. These primary sources are presented as direct evidence that the doctrine was taught and practiced during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, countering Evans’s claim that no such endorsement existed in print before the Prophet’s death.

The Rhetoric of Authority and Accusation

Smith’s language is consistently confrontational, accusing Evans of wilful misrepresentation and unwarranted abuse. He frames the debate as a conclusive refutation of false charges, using legalistic phrasing such as conclusive refutation and false charges persistently made. Evans, in turn, is quoted defending his faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet, asserting that if the Prophet received a revelation on plural marriage, it was from God. The pamphlet thus becomes a battle over who speaks for the authentic Mormon tradition, with each correspondent claiming the mantle of true doctrine.

Readers should approach this pamphlet as a primary source in the history of Mormon doctrinal controversy, not as an impartial survey. The correspondence reveals how both sides used manuscript records, witness testimony, and appeals to prophetic authority to bolster their positions. Because only excerpts are available here, the full argument—including Evans’s responses and the affidavits in the supplement—remains incomplete. The work rewards attention to the specific documentary evidence each correspondent chooses to highlight and the editorial framing that shapes the reader’s understanding.

There’s something tender in watching two men argue in 1905 over what their faith meant, each certain they held the truer thread. I found myself thinking about how we all carry our own maps of the sacred, half-remembered. That same quiet wrestling lives in The Way of Martha and the Way of Mary — A Reader’s Guide, where action and contemplation don’t resolve so much as rest beside each other.