Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: A Discussion

In Short

This volume is a compilation of letters and supporting affidavits written to refute public allegations made by Richard C. Evans, a leader in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The author, Joseph Fielding Smith, systematically counters claims that the early Church practiced "blood atonement" or that Joseph Smith did not institute plural marriage. By reproducing the correspondence and providing extensive historical evidence, the author aims to correct what he views as malicious distortions, ultimately framing his own church as the only legitimate continuation of the movement’s original doctrines.

The Story

The conflict originates with an interview given by Richard C. Evans in 1905, in which he characterizes Brigham Young as a "shrewd, bad man" and alleges that the practice of plural marriage was a late, corrupt invention introduced after the migration to Utah. Evans further asserts that the doctrine of "blood atonement"—the idea that certain sins require the shedding of blood for salvation—was a tool of state-sanctioned terror used to control dissenters. For the author, these statements are not mere differences of opinion; they are an assault on the historical integrity of his faith.

The argument unfolds as a point-by-point rebuttal. The author begins by addressing the "blood atonement" charge, arguing that the practice of capital punishment in early Utah was a legal matter governed by territorial statutes, not a church-led ritual of murder. He insists that his critics have maliciously misconstrued historical rhetoric. He points to the constitutional provision for the "shedding of blood" as a scriptural principle of justice, rather than a system of private assassination. He contends that the tales of "destroying angels" and secret executions are simply the inventions of anti-Mormon sentiment.

The second half of the book turns to the origins of plural marriage. Evans and his associates maintain that the Prophet Joseph Smith never taught or practiced polygamy, and that it was a deviation introduced by Brigham Young. The author refutes this with fervor, presenting a series of sworn affidavits from individuals who claim they were personally sealed to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. He challenges the legitimacy of the "Reorganized" church itself, arguing that its founders were unstable opportunists who bounced between various splinter groups before forming their own entity.

Throughout the text, the author uses a tone of uncompromising precision. He scrutinizes the character of those who testified against the early Church, labeling them as apostates or people who were easily deceived by "bogus" claims. He concludes that the Reorganized Church is a "counterfeit" with no divine authority. By the end of the exchange, the reader is left with a stark picture of a house divided: two factions claiming the same heritage but holding diametrically opposed views on what that heritage actually dictates. The book serves as a historical record of the struggle for the Church’s identity, asserting that the truth is found in the testimonies of those who were present at the inception of the doctrine, rather than in the shifting narratives of later critics.

How It Unfolds

The provocation begins The narrative opens with the reproduction of a newspaper interview where Richard C. Evans labels early Church leaders as murderous and corrupt. The author views this as a direct attack on the Church's reputation and commits to a public, point-by-point rebuttal.

The theological defense The author provides a detailed explanation of "blood atonement," clarifying that it refers to legal capital punishment and ancient biblical concepts rather than extralegal murder. He argues that this distinction is intentionally ignored by those who seek to paint the early pioneers as fanatics.

The evidence of marriage To counter the claim that Joseph Smith did not practice plural marriage, the author presents a collection of formal, notarized affidavits. These accounts describe specific instances where individuals were married to the Prophet in Nauvoo, aiming to prove the doctrine was established long before the move to Utah.

The attack on legitimacy The author pivots to the history of the Reorganized Church, questioning the motives and character of its founding members. He argues that because these leaders were previously involved in various splinter movements, their claims to represent the "original" church are historically invalid.

The final summation The book concludes with a firm declaration of historical continuity. The author insists that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the sole legitimate successor to the Prophet's work, dismissing all opposing claims as falsehoods.

The People

Joseph Fielding Smith acts as the primary voice of the Church, driven by a desire to protect its legacy from what he considers slander. He is precise, deeply skeptical of his opponents' motives, and committed to using legalistic evidence to prove his point. He views his task as a duty to the truth.

Richard C. Evans represents the opposing view, serving as the catalyst for the entire debate. He is portrayed as a man who initially sought the Church's hospitality but later turned to public criticism for, in the author's estimation, notoriety. He stands as the symbol of the "Reorganized" perspective that seeks to distance the movement from its most controversial historical practices.

Joseph Smith (the Prophet) serves as the central, though absent, figure around whom all arguments revolve. His character is the prize in this tug-of-war; one side wishes to portray him as a man who sanctioned plural marriage as a divine command, while the other side attempts to preserve his legacy by denying he ever engaged in the practice.

Brigham Young is the lightning rod for the criticism, accused by the opposition of introducing "vile" doctrines to cover his own behavior. The author defends him as a faithful leader, arguing that he merely carried out the instructions left by his predecessor.

In Its Own Voice

Regarding the accusations leveled against the Church leaders, the author writes:

"To correct misrepresentation, we adopt self representation."

The author emphasizes that his defense is necessary because of the hostile narratives created by outsiders:

"When men accuse the Church of practicing 'blood atonement' on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God."

Regarding the personal testimony he holds as absolute proof of the Prophet’s actions:

"I again testify that the revelation on polygamy was given through the prophet Joseph on the 12th July, 1843; and that the Prophet Joseph both taught and practiced polygamy I do positively know, and bear testimony to the fact."

What It's Really About

This book is fundamentally an argument about historical authority and the control of institutional memory. It seeks to answer who possesses the right to define the past: the group that remained in Utah or the faction that formed a separate organization. The central question is whether the Church’s most controversial historical practices—plural marriage and the theology of blood—are essential, revealed truths or later, corrupt deviations. The author argues that truth is fixed and evidenced by formal testimony, while error is the result of shifting popular opinion and the influence of "lying spirits." Ultimately, it is an exploration of how a religious group codifies its own history to survive external condemnation.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of the American religious experience will find this volume deeply illuminating. It is not a polished history, but rather a sharp, polemical exchange that captures the intensity of early 20th-century sectarian conflict. Because it relies heavily on primary source material—letters, affidavits, and newspaper clippings—it offers a rare, unfiltered look at the arguments that were being traded between these two groups over a hundred years ago.

However, the reader should be prepared for a dense, highly specialized, and at times combative prose style. The author is deeply invested in the internal politics of his era, and his tone is often defensive and confrontational. The book does not attempt to be objective; it is a partisan document written with the intent to win a debate. For those looking to understand the specific historical grievances of the Latter-day Saints regarding their own past, it is a valuable, if difficult, artifact. It stays with you as a reminder of how urgently communities fight to maintain the sanctity of their history, even when that history is widely viewed as scandalous by the outside world. It is a work of conviction, meant for those who want to see how a tradition justifies its most complex origins.