The Rocky Mountain Saints/Chapter 44
- THE SPRINGVILLE MURDERS.
- The Status of the People during the Time of Blood
- Brigham's absolute Authority
- Something Personal of Lee and the Leaders at Springville
- How the Parrishes were Entrapped and Murdered
- Confession of the Bishop's Counsellor
- "Helping those who need Help"
- How Bird "worked the best he could"
- "A Lick across the Throat"
- Paying the Atoning Penalty
- Horrible Sacrifice of an Unfaithful Wife How
- John G———'s Blood was "Spilled."
The Mormon newspapers very properly declaim against "the people" of Utah being branded as murderers, because murders have been committed within their Territory, and, further, they protest against the great "crimes being charged to Brigham Young. Unfortunately for these defenders, no sane person, in or out of the Territory of Utah, ever did hold "the people" responsible for the black deeds of their history, and if the Prophet is selected by the universal judgment of mankind to bear the charge of crimes, his own teachings may have had something to do with inducing that conclusion.
When a public teacher utters a thousand times the statement that it is his right to dictate, direct, and control the affairs of a whole people, from the building of a temple down "to the ribbons that a woman should wear," or to "the setting-up of a stocking," and that his influence over the passions of men and women in a religious assembly was so potential that, if he "had but crooked his little finger" they would have torn a United States judge to pieces, neither he nor his friends can righteously complain when violence is done among such a people, without personal cause being visible, that a suspicion should follow that "the ruling priesthood" may have been the cause.
That the citizens of Cedar, Parowan, Pinto, Harmony, and Washington settlements, south of Fillmore, were any more wicked than the citizens of the settlements north of Fillmore, no one believes—yet the Mountain Meadows Massacre was committed by the militia from those southern settlements. When the news of that deed was heard, the people north were terror-stricken, and shuddered with horror at the thought of the barbarous crime, and the recital of the bloody work is harrowing to them to-day. Had the massacre been committed in the north, the people of the south would have experienced the same sentiments of abhorrence, yet they in the south committed the crime, and served themselves with the spoils of their victims.
The Mormon people in Utah are not the offspring of a barbarous race, neither were they raised and nurtured in uncivilized nations. Apart from the spitefulness of religious controversy—which, by-the-by, is nothing peculiar to them—a kinder and more simple-hearted people is not upon the face of the earth. Had the Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred in any of the neighbouring Territories, and that crime was clearly the work of white people, the Mormons would have despised them, hated them, and in all probability would have refused all intercourse with them.
That Brigham Young is by his natural instincts a bad man, or that his apostles and his bishops are men of blood, is not true. Here and there among them a malicious man is met with, but, apart from religion, the ruling men in Utah would be considered good citizens in any community.
Without the consideration of the question of personal divinity, the high moral teaching and unspotted life of the Nazarene have been the greatest blessings to mankind, and have, through the varied channels, and slow, tortuous, and muddled windings of progressive civilization, made the nineteenth century what it is. Under the influence of that Christianity, the Mormons were second to no people of their class; but once from under it, and with headlong rush flying back to the habits, customs, and morality, of the ages of the world's childhood, Mormonism is consistently just what it is. Moving in the light of past ages, the hatred of the Gentile and the apostate has made the history of Utah what it has been. The more they have approximated in situation to the nomadic Israelites, the more have they been able to reproduce their works. It is with this understanding that the Mountain Meadows Massacre is explicable, and the subject-matter of this chapter can be comprehended.
John D. Lee, who has been selected as the chief scapegoat upon which to pile the responsibility of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, is not, in his own estimation, without defence. That his instincts are, in the judgment of others, low and brutal, is unquestioned, but he probably prays as much as the most refined Mormon in Utah, and doubtless pays his tithing with as great regularity. The Author wrote to a gentleman, who had visited Lee and had been with him some time, to ask what his personal opinion was about this man now so notorious. His answer was: "Lee is a good, kind-hearted fellow, who would share his last biscuit with a fellow-traveller on the plains, but at the next instant, if Brigham Young said so, he would cut that fellow-traveller's throat."
It is not intended to infer here that Lee, in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, was but the tool of Brigham Young. Lee has refused to divulge anything on the subject, but he has said that the order was not given by the Prophet, and though there has been but little done that was not, either directly or indirectly, ordered or countenanced by Brigham, it is due to the latter that he should have all the advantage of Lee's disclaimer, till evidence shows that Lee has spoken falsely. The arguments and statements of "Argus" are very forcible to all who have lived in Utah, and they point logically to Brigham, but there is not yet before the public the evidence of direct communication between Brigham Young, in Salt Lake City, and Col. W. H. Dame, in Parowan. That the communication was possible, is true, but that it was had is as yet "not proven," and Brigham Young has a right to the benefit of that fact.[1]
The chapter on the "Reformation" must have satisfied the reader that the commission of the massacre was possible in 1857, for the Tabernacle had been preaching a "reformation" by blood for a period of three years. The provocation to violence was all that was required. The advance of the troops and the passage of the emigrant trains were only the accidents. Before either of them was heard of, the teachings of the "Reformation" had begun to bear their fruits among the Mormons themselves, particularly in the very notable case known as the Parrish Murders at Springville.
The family of Parrish had at one time been very devoted to the Church. In the controversy that occurred between Sidney Rigdon and the Twelve Apostles at Nauvoo for the ruling supremacy of the Church, Parrish's name figures in one of the documents, and he is reported to have said that "he would follow the Twelve if they led him to hell." Ten years later his zeal had cooled considerably, and he had resolved to leave the Territory. It is not likely that the consideration of the influence abroad of a man of his calibre could have weighed much with the Mormon leaders, yet he was brutally and foully murdered, as also was one of his sons, and the other son was seriously wounded, on the evening that they were preparing to start for California. This particular case is probably the best illustration of how men are "killed to save them."
The facts of this deed of blood clearly exhibit that it was a religious murder. The major part of the men charged with compassing the death of the Parrishes never would have soiled their hands with the blood of these or any other persons on their own account. They are not men of bad habits; not riotous, nor drunkards. Bishop Johnson, for whose apprehension Judge Cradlebaugh issued a warrant on the charge of this murder, is a very quiet, inoffensive man. He has a well-regulated and, for aught the public know, a peaceable home, with ten excellent wives and a long string of children. Mayor McDonald is a thorough Scotchman, a Gaelic Highlander, born and reared with the best surroundings of Presbyterianism, a man of unfailing honesty, strict integrity, and truthfulness, and blessed with as sweet a wife as ever honoured man with her love. Though great and powerful physically, he was by nature docile as a lamb. There could be nothing possibly in the "apostasy" of Parrish, and the proposed departure of his family from Utah, to tempt such men as these to harbour thoughts of deadly violence or to countenance it in others, yet they are charged with other persons with deliberating in a council of elders against this man Parrish, and with having put the machinery to work that brought about his death. It is to be hoped that of all this they are innocent, for it is painful to see men who have every quality calculated to command respect dragged into such frightful positions.
According to the affidavits made under oath of persons who had been actors in the Parrish tragedy, the first move against the "apostate" was made in a council of elders that was convened on the 1st of March of that same bloody 1857. Two of that council—Abraham Durfee and Duff Potter—were appointed to play the part of spies upon the Parrish family and to assume that they also were dissatisfied with the condition of things in Utah, and thereby ingratiating themselves with the Parrishes and winning their confidence, worm out of them when they intended to leave for California, and all their plans.
On the 14th of March, the evening of the departure of the Parrishes, Potter and Durfee were with them and professed to aid them in leaving without observation, while in reality they were leading them to the place where they were to be killed. In the darkness of the night, Potter, who decoyed the elder Parrish, was accidentally shot and killed. The old man Parrish seems to have rallied from his surprise and struggled with his assailant, and was finally stabbed to death. His eldest son fell-dead upon the road, and the younger son, though severely wounded, escaped and got back into Springville. He and Durfee were arrested and examined to see whether they had committed the murders!! The farce of an inquest was gone through with before the public, and some of the men who were afterwards charged with being privy to the murder sat as jurors: the details are sickening, and leave no room for questioning why the deed was done—they were "apostates." After the affidavits taken by Judge Cradlebaugh had been published (as referred to in a previous chapter), one J. M. Stewart, who at the time of the murder was counsellor to Bishop Johnson, made confession of the whole matter, and in it implicates Brigham Young as the author of the order for that deed also; but of Brigham's guilt there has been no other evidence given to the public, and the caution on misjudging him already expressed is again suggested to the reader. The following is the
CONFESSION OF STEWART.
"San Bernardino, July 4, 1859.
| · | · | · | · | · |
"At a certain time during the notable 'Reformation,' I think in the winter of 1857, I was, as one of the Bishop's counsellors, presiding and speaking at a ward meeting in the house of G. G. (Duft) Potter, where a brother counsellor, N. T. Guyman, came to the door and said, 'Brother Stewart, please to cut your remarks short; the Bishop wishes to see you.' I did so, and went with him to the Bishop's council-room, an upper room in his dwelling-house. As this was in the night, our movements were perhaps observed by but very few. The Bishop (Johnson), Guyman, and myself, and some few others, whom I cannot now identify, composed this council. After all had assembled, and were orderly seated, the Bishop stated the object of the meeting, which was that we might hear a letter which he had just received from 'President Young.' He there read the letter, the purport of which was about this:
"He, Brigham, had information that some suspicious characters were collecting at the 'Indian Farm' on Spanish Fork, and he wished him (Bishop Johnson) to keep a good lookout in that direction; to send some one out there to reconnoitre and ascertain what was going on, and if they (those suspicious characters) should make a break and be pursued, which he required, he 'would be sorry to hear a favourable report;' 'but,' he wrote, 'the better way is to lock the stable-door before the horse is stolen.' He then admonished the Bishop that he (the Bishop) understood these things, and would act accordingly, and to 'keep this letter close." This letter was over Brigham's signature, in his own peculiarly rough hand, which we all had the privilege of seeing. About this matter there was no counselling. The word of Brigham was the law, and the object was that we might hear it.
"Early one morning during the week succeeding the council, Parrish and Durfee called at my house (or office), for I was the precinct magistrate, when Parrish, under oath, said his horses were stolen the night before from his stable, and asked for a search-warrant. I could find no law in Utah making it the duty or the privilege of a justice or any other officer to grant a search-warrant, yet I considered that there could be no harm in it, and therefore granted it, directing it to the sheriff, his deputy, or any constable of Utah County, requiring him to search diligently Utah County for such property. Parrish wished me to deputize Durfee to search, but I refused. It was at this time that Durfee aimed, as I understood it, to give me a hint of his situation. 'In private,' he said, 'you know how I stand.' I replied 'yes,' supposing that he alluded to his apostasy, which he had made as public as he dare, when he replied, 'All's right in Israel!' I did not understand him.
"The next Saturday night there was a council which I attended by special invitation. In the council were, as well as I remember, Bishop A. Johnson, J. M. Stewart, A. F. McDonald, N. T. Guyman, L. Johnson, C. Sanford, and W. J. Earl. I am pretty certain there were others present, but I cannot now name them. Oh, yes! Potter and Durfee were present. They came in with blankets wrapped around them. In this council there was a good deal of secret talking, two or three individuals getting close together, and talking in suppressed tones, which I, being dull of hearing, did not wholly understand. I understood, however, when Potter requested of the Bishop the privilege to kill Parrish wherever he could find 'the damned curse,' and the Bishop's reply, 'Shed no blood in Springville.'
"During this council, to the best of my recollection, recollection, I scarcely spoke a word. I understood that blood would probably be shed, not in Springville, but out of it. I did in my heart disapprove of the course, but I was in the current and could not get out, and policy said to me: 'Hold your tongue for the present.' This was Saturday night, and, as well as I remember, I heard no more of the affair till the next (Sunday) night one week; that is, eight days after.
"I knew nothing of the plan nor of the deeds until near midnight, when I was awakened and requested to go and hold an inquest over some dead bodies. W. J. Earl, one of the city aldermen, and my predecessor in the magisterial office, made this requirement of me, and undertook to dictate to me in selecting a jury. I considered my position for a moment, and concluded to suffer myself to be dictated to, unless an attempt should be made to lead me to the commission of crime. In that case I felt that I would try mighty hard to back out.
"I obeyed my manager, W. J. Earl, in selecting the jury. Having summoned a part of the number requisite, and being told by Earl that the jury could be filled out after we got there, we proceeded along the main road, south, about one mile from the public square, to the corner of a field, known as 'Child's Corner.' Here lay the bodies of William R. Parrish and G. G. Potter (Duff Potter). They had evidently been killed in the road, and dragged to the place where they lay. I proceeded to fill up and qualify the jury. The examination took place under my own observation. It was a protracted one—a minute record being kept by A. F. McDonald, foreman. Before we got through with young Parrish, Beason (so called) was discovered dead, about fifteen rods southeast of the other bodies. The verdict was, 'That they came to their deaths by the hands of an assassin or assassins to the jury unknown.'
"The bodies were hauled to the school-house by George McKinzie, who, by somebody's direction, I suppose, was on the ground with his team and wagon. The bodies were guarded through the night by the police.
"The next morning the Bishop sent word to me to bury the bodies, which I did, and made out the bill according to the charges of the men employed. I was told to take charge of the goods, chattels, and clothing of the murdered men, which I did, and in due time delivered every article to their families, except a butcher-knife, claimed by Mrs. Parrish, which I did not suppose belonged to her, and which I would not give to her (professing ignorance of its whereabouts) till I could get directions from the Bishop. She never got the knife; it was subsequently lost in my family.
"Some considerable time—I don't know how long—after the murder, I spoke to Bishop Johnson concerning the above-named knife. I suppose, from the fact that when the knife came into my possession it was all over blood, that it had been used by the assassin; but the Bishop thought differently. During our chat about the knife and the murder, the Bishop asked:
"'Do you know who done that job?'
"I replied, 'No.' He then asked.
"'Have you any idea?'
"'No.'
"'Can't you guess?'
"I answered, 'I guess I could.'
"He then said, 'Well, guess.'
"'I guess William Bird.'
"He replied, 'You are pretty good at guessing.'
"I know nothing which would naturally have caused me to suspect William Bird, even as much as some others; but there was an internal prompting right at the moment, and I spoke accordingly.
"I suppose I had as well say something about the notorious' court' in which Durfee and O. Parrish were tried for the murder of Potter and the Parrishes. H. H. Kearns, Captain of the Police, came to me on Monday, the next day after the murder, and told me that I must hold court some time that afternoon, and examine Durfee and young Parrish in regard to the murder, as he had them prisoners on that account. I understood that it was only to be done as a show or kind of a 'put-off.' I ordered the prisoners before me, and, as I was directed, swore them to tell the truth in the case then under consideration. Durfee made his statement first, which was about what has hitherto been revealed. He, of course, told what he had been instructed to tell. Parrish, as might have been expected, chose not to know anything of consequence. It was certainly wise in him to be ignorant.
"It would have been in order, while on the subject of the 'knife,' to state that which I will now state. Before the Bishop and I had got through our chat, Bird came in sight, and the Bishop called to him. He came to us, and, during our conversation, coolly and deliberately made the following statement:
"When Potter fell, I clinched Parrish and killed him with my knife.'
"I know that Parrish was killed with a knife. Potter was killed with what appeared to be one load of four balls from a shot-gun, entering just under his left breast. Beason Parrish was also killed by one or two shots in his body, the particular locality not now remembered.
"Thus I have written all that I can think of of that tragical affair. I am perfectly aware that that portion of the community, who have no knowledge of the undercurrents and wire-workings of Mormonism, will consider me a 'poor concern' for suffering myself to be swayed in my official duties by ecclesiastical dignitaries, for suffering myself, in the case above mentioned, to be governed by the Bishop. But I perfectly understood that, to act without counsel, or to disobey counsel, was to transgress; and, if I had never understood it before, I could not but understand it then, by the example of the three dead bodies right before my eyes, that 'the way of the transgressor is (was) hard.'
"I might make some revealments, but they would not be very important, concerning the case of Mr. Forbes. I may make them at some future time.
"I will now close.
I am, etc., your humble servant,
"J. M. Stewart."[2]
That all this was the work of the "Reformation," and its teaching about killing apostates "to save them," there can be no doubt; but, in making this assertion, it is also right to say that it is extremely difficult to believe that the actuating spirit of those murders sprang from "loving one's neighbour as oneself," after the fashion of the Tabernacle teaching already quoted. The surroundings of the philosophy and logic of Brigham about "helping those who need help," and shedding the blood of those who "want their blood to be shed," is all wanting in the Springville, Payson, Pondtown, and other murders.
There is lacking all the beautiful romance, the heroism, the martyrdom, about the manner in which Parrish took his "cutting-off;" and Bird, instead of severing his windpipe with a sweetly-scented penknife, seems to have hacked him to death with a more fatal weapon which butchers are wont to use.
Mrs. Parrish affirms, on affidavit, that her husband "was no believer in the doctrine of killing to save, as taught by. the teachers." There is, also, in the after-confession of Durfee, the revelation of a very strong suspicion that, notwithstanding he was employed to bring about the death of Parrish, he too might have been included in that scheme of "salvation and exaltation with the gods."
The Japanese have preserved among them, from very remote ages, a romantic way of redeeming one's name from the stain of dishonour, by the unpleasant practice of "hari-kari." On such occasions, the unfortunate, who is to expiate his offence by the instruments of death within his own hands, invites his friends to witness the event, and the highest functionaries in the land honour him with their presence, and go there to testify that the transgressor died nobly and without the undignified squirming of a muscle of his frame.
But the modern Mormon has not reached that degree of Oriental refinement in seeking for himself dignity in the heavens. To that ancient illustration of heroism in the East a contrast is presented in the Rocky Mountains:
"Bird was lying in the corner of the fence; as Parrish and Potter walked along the fence, he, Bird, said he shot Potter, whom he supposed to be Parrish; that after he, Bird, had shot, he got up and stepped out to where Parrish stood, and Parrish spoke and wanted to know if it was him that had shot; he said that Parrish had his gun in his hand, and laid it down, and they, Parrish and Bird, clinched together. As they clinched, Bird drew his knife, and worked the best he could in stabbing Parrish. Bird said after Parrish was down he gave him a lick which cut his throat. He never said anything about any other person being there helping him. Bird said after he got through with the old man he took Potter's gun and his own, and got in the corner of the fence again to be ready for us. He said he lay there till we came up—the two Parrish boys and myself. Then he said he fired, and he saw one fall; he said he was afraid that the person he had shot would run off, and he fired at him again.
"When Orrin and I started, he said he came out from the fence and shot at Orrin; he said he saw me, or he supposed it was me, when I ran into the hollow; he asked me if I heard him call for me, I told him I did; he wanted to know why I did not come to him. I told him I did not like to, that I did not know what it meant in regard to their shooting.
"The next morning after the murder, I heard Bishop Johnson and Bird talking together, and he blamed Potter and Bird for not going farther away with them; the Bishop said he wanted I should be satisfied about the affair, and not tell who was in it, that if I did they would serve me the same way."[3]
In the introduction of new doctrines and practices in the Mormon Church there has always been more or less of confusion, which in time has been better arranged. Perhaps "the gods" will yet fix out this "killing to save," and render it, at least in appearance, if in nothing else, better than the crudest cannibalism, as illustrated by Bird.
The italicized portions of that confession are very refreshing. Fancy that kind of business meeting with the approval of the God of Christendom! Imagine Bird, with his coat off, his sleeves rolled up, and a great butcher-knife, "working his best" at the poor old Mr. Parrish, giving him a "lick across his throat," and when he "got through" with that affectionate, soul-saving work, taking up the gun of the assassinated man for the purpose of using it to murder his sons!
Durfee had certainly good reasons to get out of the way when invited by Bird to stay. He was not so very certain that his sands of life had not run out. That was a fearful period in Utah history. "Judgment had begun at the House of the Lord," and sinners were closely looked after.[4]
A month after the Parrish murders at Springville, one Henry Jones and his mother, living at Payson (only a few miles from Springville), were both killed. They were accused of an unnamable offence, and both were shot. The mother was killed in the house, and the son was pursued and killed in a neighbouring settlement. There was no attempt at concealment about it. The Parrishes, too, were properly "laid out," arrayed in "the robes of the priesthood," and were the subjects of a sermon. They are to come forth in the first resurrection, for they paid the atoning penalty, and are, therefore, entitled to the honours of the immortalized Saints!
There are a few notable cases in Utah history, but only a few, that have properly illustrated the blood-atonement doctrine, as taught by Brigham.
In one instance, it is related that one of the wives of a polygamist was unfaithful during his absence when he was on a mission. On his return, the "Reformation" was in full blast, and the unhappy wife believed that, from this faux pas, she was doomed to lose her claim to motherhood over the children which she had already borne; that she would be cast aside in eternity as well as in time, by her husband; that, in fact, she would only "be an angel, and with the angels stand;"[5] and that she could not reach the circle of the gods and goddesses unless her blood was shed. She consented to meet the penalty of her error, and while her heart was gushing with affection for her husband and her children, and her mind absorbed with faith in the doctrine of human sacrifice, she seated herself upon her husband's knee, and after the warmest and most endearing embrace she had ever known—it was to be her last—when the warmth of his lips still lingered about her glowing cheek, with his own right hand he calmly cut her throat and sent her spirit to the keeping of the gods. That kind and loving husband still lives near Salt Lake City, and preaches occasionally with great zeal. He seems happy enough.
One of the elders at Council Bluffs, in a dispute over some trifling matter, warned one of the brethren not to cross a certain boundary-line in his field or garden. He braved the threat, and the other shot him dead. The murderer offered to expiate his crime, but for years no one was found willing to "help "him," and he lived on miserably under the influence and teaching of the "blood atonement." He seemed to be unhappy when living with the Saints, and was equally so when among the Gentiles; finally he returned to Zion, and engaged in business in Salt Lake City. One evening he was walking quietly home, the firing of a pistol was heard, and the dead body of a man was soon after picked up. A report was circulated that John G. . . . n had committed suicide. But another, and probably more correct account, was believed by those who knew of his "sin unto death."[6]
Though John was no coward beyond the consciousness of guilt, he probably had an aversion to getting "a committee appointed," as the apostle Grant recommended, and going to an appointed place and there having his "blood shed" by that kindly committee. A specified time and place and executioners could not well be pleasant to think of, and John was supposed to have arranged with some friend who "loved him as himself," to take him unawares and "spill his blood." John was properly conveyed to the cemetery, and the veil fell upon his career.
In this and in preceding chapters, phases of Utah history, illustrative of very doubtful principles promulgated by the Mormon priesthood, have been freely dealt with; but the numerous charges of murder in Utah could not possibly be investigated here, and are very properly remitted to the labours of some future prosecuting attorney. Enough, however, has been shown to exhibit to the Mormon people the disaster that must inevitably ensue to any people who make murder an auxiliary of their faith, and it is to be hoped that the Government of the United States will yet take such action in these murders as will teach the guilty that this vile wrong, and the standing threat against the unpopular Gentile and the "apostate," will not go unpunished.
- ↑ Many respectable persons in Utah, who have free intercourse with the apostles and leading men of the Mormon Church, do not believe that Brigham Young had anything to do with this massacre. It would be very gratifying to see him exonerated from the charge. Should it yet turn out that it was the work of another, and that Brigham has patiently borne the imputation for so many years, he will richly deserve respect where he now is condemned.
- ↑ Valley Tan, August 24, 1859.
- ↑ Durfee's confession.
- ↑ On affidavit, Joseph Bartholomew related before Judge Cradlebaugh that repeated efforts were made to kill him and Durfee, as they had been indiscreet in speaking of this Springville murder, and were evidently apostate in spirit. There can be very little sympathy for such men, even when their story is true. In the Mountain Meadows Massacre, when men were called out as a militia, without knowing their destiny and the work to be done; and when, as in some instances, even knowing the work, men were afraid of their lives if they refused, there can be honest sympathy; but, for such men as would deliberately decoy an unsuspecting friend to the shambles, there can be no honest tears shed. If Bird had "got through" with a few more of his assistants, the world would have wagged quite as well.
- ↑ The Saints, arguing from the words of St. Paul, "Know ye not that ye shall judge angels," place those celestial beings much lower in the "Kingdom of heaven" than the souls of redeemed and sanctified men and women. The Mormon revelations clearly define that Gentiles if they behave themselves in the next world may be permitted to occupy the position of servants or "angels" to the Saints. Brigham and Heber used to calculate that some Presidents of the United States would yet be their "boot-blacks," and might be otherwise honoured to do the "chores " for the apostolic families in the Millennium and afterwards.
- ↑ "Verily, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife acccording to my word" (that is, in polygamy and by virtue of the requirements of this revelation), "and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment." (that is, at the Mormon altar), "and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet shall they come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation, but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan, unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord."—"Revelation" on Polygamy, Section IX.