This is demonstrated by many of the quotes found in the previously linked article. He liked to bluster and he could be difficult in several ways, no doubt, but for the most part, they loved him and knew that he loved them in return. But that isn’t the way it came across to the Saints under Brigham’s leadership. We don’t know Brigham, we don’t know what the atmosphere was like at those events, we aren’t familiar with the social climate of that society, and the rhetoric often comes across as extreme and bizarre to us. When we read over his words, they come across differently to us than they would have in person at the time, because we aren’t familiar with that style of teaching. It’s something that often gets lost in translation today.
Consequently, in many instances we use language that we would rather not use. When you wish the people to feel what you say, you have got to use language that they will remember, or else the ideas are lost to them. They knew that Brigham cared about them and wanted to see them stay strong in the gospel, so they understood that his words were often for effect or sometimes for shock value rather than his legitimate views. The early Saints were familiar with this style of preaching and many found it to be highly entertaining. Jonathan Edwards’s “ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is another such surviving sermon that is still well-known today. His infamous Independence Day speech and so-called “ Salt Sermon” are prime examples. You don’t have to look any farther than Sidney Rigdon to see that style in practice. It’s out of place in our society today, but in the 1800s it was a popular style in Protestant circles, from which many of the early Saints converted. Part of the “ fire and brimstone” style of preaching was exaggerated, over-the-top, violent imagery, like sermons about being cast into the fire or hewn down by the Lord in graphic detail, that kind thing. Remember last week when I talked about Brigham Young’s theatrical style of preaching? That comes heavily into play this week. I’m going to try to put it all into some historical context for you guys so that it all makes sense. This is why, later in the post, I also want to touch on the stories of the Danites and also Mountain Meadows, and how they both tie into the folklore surrounding Blood Atonement. Because of that, I love the larger mythology of Blood Atonement and the way something so simple could become so exaggerated and ludicrous and take on a life of its own. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy history so much, because it’s just a compilation of a million different stories. I love stories: watching them, reading them, writing them, imagining them.
In my free time, though, I like to write fiction. It’s basically just exaggerated rhetoric to make a point. To be honest, on its own, Blood Atonement is just not that interesting or even very strange. It’s such a caricature of the actual teaching, I honestly thought it was facetious satire at first before I realized the author was serious. You can see a highly biased approach to the topic here for an example of what I’m talking about. Today, we’re going to talk about one of my favorite weird/controversial topics of Church history, Blood Atonement and the way it was so badly misconstrued. Part 29: CES Letter Prophet Questions by Sarah Allen