There was a recent case in Ontario where a husband, (second) wife and (adult) son murdered the (first) wife and 3 daughters. (These were Muslim polygamists.) They were all found guilty. Their charges were that the 4 victims were killed for bringing shame and dishonour to their family.
Could Mormons become that misguided?
There were times during my marriage that I feared that my TBM wife identified with the salvation of our children so strongly that she could be capable of anything. My wife would tell me that anything was justified in getting our son out of substance abuse (and onto his mission) or preventing our daughter's relationship with a non-Mormon (and ready for a RM).
There was weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth - plus a good portion of confrontation, attacks, assaults and kidnappings. My wife always felt justified because she was saving her children. But more often my wife's greatest fear was how her parenting might be judged by other ward members.
My wife even refused to heed bishop's counsel on these matters. "Confrontation is a tool of the devil," a bishop would say... - "But not when enforcing righteousness," my wife would retort.
A bishop even produced a book by Stephen Covey where he claims that when parents attempt to enforce their youth's agency, their only free choice is to rebel. My wife couldn't see how that applied to us.
There were times I truly feared for the safety of our family. Would it be my wife or the children who takes this too far? Is my spouse insane?
All that is behind us now. I am no longer in that family or the Church that drives her. What my wife has never acknowledged is that her aggressive testimony to keep her family together in the kingdom of God has cost her relationships with us all.
Brigham Young certainly approved. And even though they wisely refuse to discuss it in public, Mormons are all over the idea of Blood Atonement like flies on $#!t.
The one time I heard blood atonement discussed in Priesthood Meeting by a very professional mormon, it was discussed with reverence because no matter the details it had come from the prophet Brigham Young. It was discussed in the same tone as when Nephi's killing of Laban was discussed.
It's all OK because God commanded it.
There was more of an awe about it than an abhorrence which should have been a red flag for me, but I was very astute at shelving things by that point.
Long time ago--I was young. It was just before my mission when that lesson was given in Elder's Quorum meeting. It is hard to look back now at all the adults in the room accepting it as just another priesthood lesson. I'm sure they aren't allowed to discuss it now-a-days.
I could sense disrespect from Mormons towards others with other religions or traditions. I could sense contempt from TBM members towards members that they felt weren't demonstrating enough faith. It might be poor seminary attendance or not dressing your 4 year old son in a tie... There is definitely something suspicious about that family. I wonder if "blood atonement" might cure them?
Besides the blood atonement thing, in the early days of the church in Utah a man was considered within his rights to kill the seducer of his wife. In one notable case, in 1851, Howard Egan was tried for killing James Monroe in Utah Territory.
The primary defense, aside from a jurisdictional issue, was that Utah Territory operated off what was referred to as "Mountain Law", (borrowed from certain Southern states), where a man was not only justified for killing the "defiler" of a woman in his family, but the nearest male kin was pretty much expected to do it.
If the shooting (in front of witnesses and never denied by Egan) occurred outside the Territory, it was subject to US laws, which were different. If it occurred within Territorial boundaries, it was subject to Territorial law, which followed the older "Mountain" law.
Egan was acquitted. That would not happen today in terms of prosecution (as a general matter) and/or approval by the coroporation, but I can imagine an overly zealous and deranged imdividual member deciding murder was an acceptable way to "save" a child or other relative.
You run into utter crackpots in any religion, though, far from being exclusive to the corporation.
I waited several hours to see if anybody'd notice the irony of a polygamist being acquitted of killing another who seduced one of his wives on the basis of it being natural and expected, when both men were members of a "church" founded by a guy who stole other men's wives and was revered as a prophet while doing so.
Read "Under the Banner of Heaven", by John Krakauer. Its about the Lafferty Brothers that killed their sister in law, and her 2 yr old. Sliced their throats, because "God told them to do it." Seriously, that was their defense.
If blood atonement was allowed and legal my parents would have done it to me. I really believe this. I was constantly being told how they would rather see me in a pine box than sin.