View PDF

Editor’s Note: This article has footnotes. To review them, please see the PDF below.

Introduction 

In July 1830, just three months after the formal organization of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith dictated a revelation that promised, “in whatsoever place ye shall enter in & they receive you not in my name ye shall leave a cursing instead of a blessing by casting off the dust of your feet against them as a testimony & cleansing your feet by the wayside.”Subsequently, the historical record is replete with examples of ritual cursing being performed up through the 1890s. While many of Smith’s revelations and doctrinal innovations continue to be practiced by the LDS Church today, cursing has fallen into disuse. Despite this ritual’s unique status as an act of formally calling down God’s wrath upon others, it has received surprisingly little attention in scholarly studies. 

The first objective of this paper is to examine ritual cursing within Mormonism: how ritual cursing began, who performed curses, who was cursed, and how the ritual was performed. Factors that contributed to an environment conducive to ritual cursing will also be explored. Cursing arose during a period of bold innovation within Mormonism, as founding prophet Joseph Smith unveiled a seemingly endless stream of new doctrines and practices. Although ritual cursing may be appropriately described as new to the religious world in which Mormonism was born, it had ancient roots. Ritual cursing was an expression of Christian primitivism among Mormons, an attempt to recapture an ancient biblical rite that had been lost over time. The most common practitioners of ritual cursing were Mormon missionaries who faced rejection in their efforts to proselytize. Mormonism began as a small sect with many religious and political enemies, and Mormons used ritual cursing as a means of holy retaliation against their enemies. The manner in which the ritual was performed varied, typically including the dusting or washing of feet, but at times involving the shaking of one’s garment. Cursing was considered part of a missionary’s duty to prepare the world for the imminent millennium. The ritual designated unbelievers as such, marking them as separate from believers for the day of judgment. The ritual was fluid and developed over time, cross-pollinating with other rituals from the School of the Prophets, the Kirtland Endowment, and the prayer circle. The combination of doctrinal innovation, Christian primivism, and millenarianism, set against a backdrop of proselytizing efforts, disbelieving masses, and persecuting mobs, provided fertile ground for ritual cursing to flourish in the early days of the Church. 

The second objective of this paper is to examine the decline and discontinuation of the cursing ritual. This discontinuation resulted from a reduction in prominence of several aforementioned influences present during the formative years of the Church. Over time, Mormonism transitioned from a small, young, persecuted minority to a stable, sizeable, economic power in the western U.S.With the transition to stability, pressures and priorities within Mormonism changed. As Mormons removed themselves geographically from their tormentors, violence and persecution lessened. Generations passed without Jesus’s return, and Mor monism’s millenarian impulse began to fade. Missionaries no longer sealed unbelievers up to the day of judgment, but returned to homes again and again and gave multiple chances to hear the gospel message. Cursing was advised against and eventually dropped from Church discourse and publications. Doctrinal innovation gave way to the routinization necessary for Mormonism to endure as an institution, and practices viewed as nonessential to the Church’s mission were eliminated. Without persecutors tormenting them, the millennium around the corner, and an environment favoring innovative ritual practices, the impetus to curse was lost for most Mormons. With the Church stable and persecution minimized, the practice was discontinued. 

Biblical Precedents and Joseph Smith’s Revelations

The Bible was a fertile source of inspiration for Joseph Smith’s revelations. Doctrinal innovations such as baptism for the dead, the post-mortal degrees of glory, and polygamy resulted from Smith’s poring over the pages of the Old and New Testaments. Similarly, Smith’s pronouncements on curses had biblical precedents. Jesus himself told his disciples: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city” (Mark 6:11; see also Matt. 10:14, Luke 9:5). Similar instruction is repeated in his commission to seventy others (Luke 10:10–12). This act of retribution was performed by Jesus’ followers elsewhere in the New Testament, as when Paul and Barnabas “shook off the dust of their feet against [the Jews] . . . [and] were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 13:51–52). 

Bible scholars have offered various interpretations of the New Testament dust-shaking gesture. Some have drawn parallels to rabbinic literature in which Jews traveling in Gentile lands are expected to remove the dust of an impure foreign nation from their bodies before returning to the holy land. Others have suggested that the act was intentionally humorous. Still others have ignored the subject entirely. T. J. Rogers argues convincingly that these biblical passages should be read in the context of ancient hospitality customs. Guests in the ancient world could expect their hosts to provide water to wash their feet, symbolizing a transition from stranger to guest in the home of their host. To shake the dust from one’s feet would therefore serve as evidence that this custom had not been observed, and hospitality had been refused to the apostles. It is implied that God would notice this testimony and execute punishment on those who had refused hospitality to his servants. 

The founding prophet of Mormonism offered his own take on the biblical dust-shaking gesture by advocating its renewed practice by Mormon proselytizers as a cursing ritual. With ample biblical examples (another doctrinal innovation, baptism for the dead, had only a single New Testament verse as precedent), Smith’s scribes recorded a revelation in July 1830 instructing missionaries for his new church to “[cast] off the dust of your feet” as a testimony against the disbelieving.One year later, on August 8, 1831, the doctrine reappeared in a new revelation: “And shake off the dust of thy feet against those who receive thee not, not in their presence, lest thou provoke them, but in secret; and wash thy feet, as a testimony against them in the day of judgment.”Smith produced three revelations on curses in 1832. In the first of these, he stated that those who performed curses would “be filled with joy and gladness,” likely alluding to Paul and Barnabas’ dusting of feet in Acts 13:51–52. Smith’s revelation also declared that “in the day of judgment you shall be judges of that house, and condemn them.”In his second 1832 revelation on cursing, it was implied that water could be used to “cleanse your feet in the secret places by the way for a testamony against them.”The final 1832 cursing revelation specified that this ritual should be performed “alone” and that “pure water” should be used to cleanse the feet.As with other Mormon ordinances, the actions of biblical figures became imbued with special status and ritualized. 

After the initial revelations on ritual cursing were received by Joseph Smith, discourse on the subject continued in official Church publications. In November 1835, Smith wrote on the subject in the Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate. In cases where a man forbade his wife and children from joining the church, the responsibility for their sins would be answered upon him as head of the house. “[T]he guilt of that house is no longer upon thy skirts: Thou art free; therefore, shake off the dust of thy feet, and go thy way.”The January 1, 1842, edition of the Times and Seasons included a letter from Orson Hyde discussing his travels in the Holy Land. He noted that by journeying during the dry season, his feet and legs were completely coated with dust. “I then thought how very convenient it must have been for the ancient disciples to fulfill one injunction of the Saviour, ‘shake off the dust of your feet.’”An 1842 epistle from the Nauvoo High Council to be read in “all the branches of the church” admonished members to bear their afflictions “as becometh saints,” and that when they were unable to obtain justice they should “shake off the dust off your feet.”Joseph Smith’s authority to curse was reemphasized in an 1843 revelation with the following language: “whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord” (D&C 132:47). Continual discourse on cursing published through official church channels created an environment in which Mormon proselytizers were prepared to curse those who rejected their message. 

Who Pronounced Curses 

Smith’s revelations on ritual cursing were given primarily to Mormon missionaries. Those who rejected the message of the Mormon preachers were to be cursed. The earliest recorded performance of cursing by a Mormon elder preceded Smith’s aforementioned revelations. According to his mother’s reminiscence, Samuel Smith, brother of the prophet and the fledgling church’s first missionary, reported that on June 30, 1830, he “washed his feet in a small brook” as testimony against an innkeeper in Liv onia, New York, who rejected the Book of Mormon and denied the missionary room and board.Use of this ritual quickly caught on among Mormon proselytizers. 

It was not always easy for missionaries to follow the command to curse. When Orson Hyde failed to convert his sister to Mormonism, he felt compelled to shake the dust off his feet. “[T]ears from all eyes freely ran, and we shook the dust of our feet against them but it was like piercing my heart.”When Wilford Woodruff was followed by Mr. Pitt, a man “filled with the Devil” who was “shouting, hooting, & yelling as though a part of hell at least had broke loose,” he demonstrated humility in the pronouncement of his curse. “May the will of God be done conserning that man, I pray that we may ever be reconciled to his will in all things.”Woodruff consigned Mr. Pitt’s fate to God. 

Mormons rarely knew of any consequences of their curses. Generally, the elders had faith that if their curse had no direct effects during mortality, it would take effect in the afterlife. One exception occurred in the West Indies in 1853: “The Elders cursed the Mayor, Hector Michell, whose duty it was to have protected them in their person and position as ministers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Subsequently they learned that the mayor’s toes and fingers rotted off and that he soon died with the rot and scabs.” 

Who Received Curses 

Early Mormon missionaries frequently encountered religionists who were equally enthusiastic about their own denominations. When Samuel Smith and William McLellin spoke to an assembly of Campbellites in 1831, the group “spoke out and said that they did not want to hear any more—They called a vote and I [McLellin] was requested to say no more. …the[y] rejected all with disdain and desired us to depart out of their coasts. Which we did and wiped the dust of our feet against them.”It was not the last time religious disagreement resulted in ritual cursing. 

At times curses were administered against individuals or groups who failed to support missionaries financially. Following the apostolic example of traveling without “purse, or scrip” (Luke 10:4; see also Mark 6:8), Mormon elders often had to rely on the generosity of others for food and lodging. Orson Pratt cursed those who would not render assistance “for the relief of our suffering brethren in zion,” and washed his feet against a family that refused him lodging for the night.William McLellin and David W. Patten cursed a schoolhouse full of congregants who refused their request for a donation at the conclusion of a meeting.William McLellin, Brigham Young, and Thomas B. Marsh washed their feet against a man who refused to provide them “bread and milk for breakfast . . . without money.” 

Mormon missionaries sometimes faced overwhelming rejection from the communities they visited. In such instances, they followed Jesus’s injunction to leave curses on entire cities where his followers were scorned (Luke 10:10–12). Detroit, Michigan, was cursed in 1831;Chicago, Illinois, was cursed in 1831;Sinclairville, New York, was cursed in 1835;Paris, Arkansas, was cursed in 1836;Beach Hill, Connecticut, was cursed in 1837;Collinsville, Connecticut, was cursed in 1837;eight households in Bel fast, Maine, were cursed in 1838;and the Fox Islands, Maine, were cursed in 1838.Sensing an urgency to their work, Mormons dusted their feet in these areas and moved on to other communities in the hope of finding more fruitful ground for proselytizing.

Mormons occasionally pronounced curses upon each other. In an 1840 meeting of the Kirtland Elders Quorum, Henry Moore was charged with false prophecy, deception, laziness, and “trying to persuade a woman to promise to have him while his own wife is still living.” Additionally, Moore was accused of “pronouncing curses upon Elder Charles Thompson because he would not uphold him in the above abominations and washing his feet against me [Thompson] for the same reason.”Seven years later, cursing was invoked in sentencing an unknown (possibly Mormon) perpetrator. When someone killed Albert Carrington’s cow in 1847, the Salt Lake Stake presidency and high council met to discuss punishment of the unidentified wrongdoer. As traditional means of litigation were impossible against an anonymous criminal, a novel solution was settled upon. “After several remarks of <by> the counselors, Pres. John Smith sealed a curse upon the person or persons who killed Carrington’s cow until they came forward and made restitution. The curse was sanctioned unanimously by the council.”These examples demonstrate that Mormons did not exclusively curse non-Mormons; at times they cursed their own, or in the case of Carrington’s cow, those who were unknown. 

Cursing was used as a means of coping with the mob violence and forced migration perpetually endured by the Mormons. Prior to their departure from Nauvoo in 1845, the Saints spent a night dancing in the temple. This was not only for recreation: “while we danced before the Lord, we shook the dust from off our feet as a testimony against this nation.”When they encountered forces they could not overcome, Mormons turned their enemies over to God and his judgments. 

How Curses Were Performed 

In describing the cursing ritual, Mormons frequently wrote that they “bore testimony” against the disbelieving, echoing language from Smith’s revelations. Joseph Coe, a missionary in New York in 1831, “washed his feet as a testimony” against those who “would not receive my doctrine” five times during a three-week period.John Murdock encountered Dr. Matthews, “a very wicked man,” in September 1832, who “reviled against us, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine we taught. We bore testimony according to the Commandment and the Lord helped us in tending to the ordinance.”Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde washed their feet and bore testimony against a Baptist priest who denounced them as false prophets.Wilford Woodruff and Jona than Hale “clensed our feet in the pure water of the Sea as a testimony against Gideon J. Newton for rejecting our testimony of the Lord & of the Book of Mormon.”William McLellin,Samuel Smith,and Orson Prattall used similar language in their journals. In effect, testimony was borne twice: first, testimony of the restored gospel was borne for the benefit of those listening; second, testimony was borne to God (as feet were dusted or washed) that the missionaries’ duty had been fulfilled. 

In a particularly interesting case, a man was cursed more than once. A Methodist priest by the name of Mr. Douglass was cursed multiple times by Wilford Woodruff, first in September 1837 “for rejecting the Book of Mormon & our testimony,”and later in February 1838 for “rejecting our testimony & offending our little ones.” Following the latter curse, Woodruff recorded in his journal that it was “the third witness borne to heaven against that man.”This is the only known example of an individual being cursed repeatedly. 

The New Testament apostle Paul described a variant of shaking the dust off one’s feet that involved the shaking of a garment. In Acts 18:6, Paul “testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” Similar instances of garment shaking exist in the Old Testament (Neh. 5:13) and Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 9:44). As enthusiastic participants in a primitive church restoration movement, it is not surprising that early Mormons imitated biblical exemplars by occasionally shaking their garments instead of their feet as a variant of the cursing ritual. 

In December 1837, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde were encountering difficulties in the mission field. Mormon meetings were being disrupted by priests from other Christian denominations, which resulted in Kimball shaking his garments at them. 

After Brother Hide speking [spoke] to the people about one [h]our; I got up and bore testamony to the congration and shock [shook] my garments before them and told them that my garments ware clean of blo[o]d. Thare was menny preas [priests] that ware thare at that time but had Rejected our testamony and cold [called] us evy thing but good and shoock thare fist at us and sisced [hissed] at us and gnashed thare theth [teeth] at us and thretned us evry way that they could. The nex[t] day we felt by the Spirrite of the Lord that we would gow and wash our feet against them and that we would not have now [any] more to dow with [them] for we was clean of thare blo[o]d and that we would have now [no] more to dow [do] with them hare after; then we went and washed our feet and hands and shuck our garments against them and bore testamony to our Father who art in heaven. 

Another interesting example of garment-shaking was related by Ashbel Kitchell, the intended recipient of a curse. After a failed endeavor to preach to a group of Shakers (of which Kitchell was a part), Parley P. Pratt “arose and commenced shakeing his coattail; he said he shook the dust from his garments as a testimony against us, that we had rejected the word of the Lord Jesus.” As this ritual was performed in front of an audience, it received an understandably negative response: “Before the words were out of his mouth, I was to him, and said;—You filthy Beast, dare you presume to come in here, and try to imitate a man of God by shaking your filthy tail; confess your sins and purge your soul from your lusts, and your other abominations before you ever presume to do the like again &c. While I was ministering this reproof, he settled trembling into his seat, and covered his face.”Such conflict may shed light on the necessity of following the scriptural injunction to curse “in secret,” as Kitchell was not unique in taking offense at this Mormon practice. 

The Millenarian Mindset of Early Mormonism 

Most early Mormons shared the belief that Christ’s second coming was nigh, and that the millennium would likely commence during their lifetimes.One step in the process of cleansing the earth preparatory to its millennial state was the separation of the righteous from the wicked. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, Jesus said, “Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn” (Matt. 13:30). This parable was referenced in two of Smith’s revelations. The first indicates the tares must be “bound in bun d[l]es” before the field can be burned.The other states: 

therefore I must gather together my people according to the parable of the wheat and the tares that the wheat may be secured in the garner to possess eternal life and be crowned with celestial glory when I come in the Kingdom of my fathe[r] to reward evry man ac cording as his work shall be whilst the tares shall be bound in bun dles and their bands made strong that they may be burned with unquenchable fire. 

Early Mormon missionaries were participating in this separation of good from evil. Performance of a ritual curse was, in effect, binding its recipients like tares preparatory to their burning. Orson Hyde performed at least six curses during his missionary travels during the spring of 1832.His journal entry of March 19 echoes the language of Jesus’s parable, “went on 3 or 4 Miles Sealed up many to the day of wrath, bound the tares in bundles.” 

Another millenarian image from the scriptures that took hold in the minds of early Mormons was that of sealing.Separate but related to the current LDS practice of temple sealings, high priests were authorized in 1831 to seal church members “up unto Eternal life,” preparatory to “the coming of the Son of man.” Elsewhere, Joseph Smith wrote that priesthood holders have “power given to seal both on Earth & in Heaven the unbelieveing & rebelious yea verily to seal them up unto the day when the wrath of God shall be poured out upon the wicked without measure” Mormons took part in the divine pre-millennial separation of righteous from wicked through ritual performance: one ritual sealed worthy individuals up to salvation, whereas the cursing rit ual sealed others to destruction. Having shaken the dust from his feet, Orson Hyde wrote in his journal in 1832: “sealed many over to the day when the wrath of God shall be poured out.”Wilford Woodruff’s journal entry for May 22, 1836, relates that by cursing those who rejected the Mormon gospel, “We delivered them unto the hands of God <and the destroyer.>” 

In August 1840, the role of cursing was questioned by Joseph Fielding in the Millennial Star periodical. He described a prevalent belief that curses sealed their recipients to damnation, and then questioned that assumption. Parley P. Pratt provided an ambiguous response. 

Question 6th. –Ought the Elders and Priests, when their testimony is rejected, to wash their feet, &c., and is there no hope of those against whom they wash their feet? An idea has gone out that we consider such sealed up for destruction. Is the washing of feet, in this way, anything more than a testimony that we are clear of their blood, when we bear testimony of it before God? 

Answer. —Certainly . . . when the Elders and Priests have borne a faithful testimony to any city, town, village or person, and that testimony is rejected, and they have fulfilled the revelation, that city, town, village or person is in the hands of a righteous God, who will do with them according to his own pleasure; we are clear from their blood. 

Whether priesthood was required to perform curses was never specified. It seems likely that when Joseph Fielding listed “Elders and Priests” in his question above, he did so not because of prerequisite priesthood office, but because they were the ones proselytizing. Joseph Smith’s revelations on cursing were directed chiefly to Mormon missionaries, and it was they who most often put the ritual into practice. 

Influence of the School of the Prophets and the Kirtland Endowment 

In December 1832, Joseph Smith received revelation to organize a school for the instruction of church leaders. As part of the initiation into this “School of the Prophets,” Smith dictated that “ye shall not receive any among you into this school save he is clean from the blood of this generation; And he shall be received by the ordinance of the washing of feet” (D&C 88:138–39). Elsewhere in the same revelation, a command is given to “clean your hands, and your feet . . . that you, are clean, from the blood of this, wicked generation.”Orson Pratt indicated that his initiation ceremony in 1833 involved the washing of both hands and feet, and that “my garments were clean from [the] blood [of this wicked generation].”By 1836, Smith was preparing to reveal special temple blessings to worthy participants in Kirtland. In an exclusive meeting of priesthood holders on January 21, Smith and others “attended to the ordinance of washing our bodies in pure water. We also perfumed our bodies and our heads.” Once the temple was dedicated in March of that same year, Smith emphasized the ordinance of washing of feet. 

Rituals and ordinances in these formative years were fluid, often inconsistent in their performance. Cross-pollination between simultaneously developing ordinances took place, as when the initiation ceremony for the School of the Prophets was adapted to fit the Kirtland temple endowment, which was later reframed in Nauvoo as a temple initiatory ordinance. Shaking the dust off one’s feet was likewise influenced by these other washing ordinances. 

In 1836, after having received the washing rituals in the School of the Prophets, Wilford Woodruff recorded three separate occasions on which he cursed unbelievers by washing his hands and feet.His journal entry for the last of these, dated October 12, describes the cleansing of his entire body with water and alcohol. 

12th Retired in company with Elder A. O. Smoot unto the banks of Blood River aside from the abodes of men to spend some time in Prayer & Praise to God & to Perform a solemn duty that is rquired of all the Elders of Israel whose testimony is rejected by this generation while they are preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ & bearing testimony of his NAME. after we had Cleansed our Bodies with Pure water & also with strong drink or spirits this not by Commandment but from Choice we then according to Commandment cleansed our hands and feet and bore testimony unto God against the Benton County mob & also against Paris & many others who had rejected our testimony. We enjoyed a solumn, spiritual, & interesting Sea son. 

Woodruff’s journal entries for 1837 (by which time he would have received the Kirtland endowment washings) include two more instances of washing hands and feet in conjunction with the performance of a curse. 

Often the injunction that invitees to the School of the Prophets be “clean from the blood of this generation” (a phrase that was later included in temple rites) was echoed in descriptions of the cursing ordinance. Missionary companions Wilford Woodruff and David Patten cursed a Mr. Jackson, “that our garments might be clear of his blood.”Joseph Fielding’s question about curses to Parley P. Pratt, when Pratt was editor of the Millennial Star, asked, “Is the washing of feet, in this way, anything more than a testimony that we are clear of their blood, when we bear testimony of it before God?”In August 1841, Woodruff related his missionary endeavors with Dr. Noah Porter: 

I bore testimony unto him of the work of God Book of mormon &c but he rejected my testimony in the Strongest term & evry thing in the form of Prophets Apostles, revelation, Inspiration or the gift of the Holy Ghost, Healings Miracles tongues &c. Seemed to be much stired up because the work had come to Farmington. But I done my duty answered my mind, bore testimony of the truth. 

After he left the house I prayed with the family & those present could see the spirit manifest in Dr Noah Porter was dictated by the powers of Darkness. I was glad to have this opportunity of bearing testimony to Dr Porter of the work of God that he might be left with out excuse. I returned to my Fathers house but before retiring to rest I repaired to the river & cleansed my feet with water in testimony against Dr Noah Porter In obediance to the commandment of God that my garments might be clear of his blood & I say in the name of Jesus Christ that if he does not repent of the course he has persued in this thing, he will no longer Prosper but the judgments of God will be upon him. 

What it meant to these early Mormons to be clean from the blood of others is explained in the same revelation outlining the commencement of a School of the Prophets: “it becometh evry man, who hath been warned, to warn his neighbour, therefore they are left with<out> excuse, and there sins are upon your own heads.”A similar theology of divine responsibility is present in the Old Testament: 

Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul (Ezekiel 3:17–21). 

Here Ezekiel expounded the duty of the Israelites to warn others to repent. Should a member of the faith fail in this duty, God would hold him responsible for the evildoings of those he might otherwise have saved. A doctrinally analogous passage is present in the Book of Mormon: “answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence . . . otherwise their blood would come upon our garments” (Jacob 1:19). Thus, when Mormon elders cursed, they did so not only to call down wrath upon their opponents, but also to free themselves from the burden of the sins of those around them. Only then could they “be filled with joy and gladness.” 

The Practice Wanes 

Despite repeated enjoinders to shake the dust from one’s feet and the enthusiasm with which some followers embraced the cursing ritual, there emerged from early on a counter rhetoric warning against the flippant condemnation of others. Warnings were given to avoid “over-zealousness in declaring judgments against the wicked,”and Mormons were cautioned to “talk not of judgments.”W. W. Phelps instructed church elders in 1832 to “warn in compassion without threatening the wicked with judgments.”In 1835, church leaders explicitly stated, “Pray for your enemies in the Church and curse not your foes without; for vengeance belongs to God.” 

Although cursing was initially embraced as a vital and necessary ritual of Mormonism, over time the recorded instances of cursing became fewer and farther between. Part of this was due to the Mormons having removed themselves to a remote area of the continent. In the process, they left many of their enemies behind, and shifted their focus from proselytizing to community building. Orson Pratt mentioned cursing in passing in an address given in 1876,but it appears that the Saints were not very concerned with cursing during the years 1850–1880. The work of settling a new land, organizing a territorial government, and confirming church organization under the leadership of Brigham Young took precedence over the responsibility of cursing the occasional out sider. 

Eventually, missionaries were sent out to preach the gospel and an increasing number of outsiders entered the Utah territory. With renewed exposure to the rejection of non-Mormons, the practice of shaking the dust off one’s feet resurfaced, but never again with the same widespread performance as was seen during the early years of the church. B. H. Roberts recorded only a single instance from his 1880–1882 mission to Iowa when he “felt at liberty” to curse someone. After receiving “rather rough treatment” in the home of a man he thought might help him obtain permission to preach at a nearby schoolhouse, Roberts departed and journeyed a mile eastward. Climbing over a fence for privacy, 

I stripped my feet and washed them in witness against this man and house for the rejection of me. This I recount as the only instance when I felt at liberty to attend to this ordinance of the washing of feet against one who had rejected me. I never returned to the house and never knew what became of it, but I left my testimony thus registered according to the commandments of the Lord. 

By this time, mentions of cursing in discourses from church leadership were rare and generally made in passing. In an 1883 session of the reformed Salt Lake City School of the Prophets, Wilford Woodruff “gave instructions and stated the effects that have followed this ordinance. Spoke upon the shaking off the dust of the feet and washing the feet in pure water in summer or in winter and the judgements of God have followed.”President George Q. Cannon cautioned that “[in] our prayers we should not condemn our enemies but leave them in the hands of God.” 

Use of the Prayer Circle 

Joseph Smith introduced a heavily modified version of the temple endowment to church leaders in Nauvoo in 1842, and by 1843 the endowment included ritual prayer circles.After the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in 1844, a prayer or oath was added to the endowment. Known as the “oath of vengeance” or “law of retribution,” the recipient of the endowment prayed that God would avenge the blood of his slain prophets.By the 1880s, Mormons were accustomed to including a call to God’s wrath upon their foes in their temple ceremonies. Although curses over all were becoming fewer in number, the 1880s saw a brief flourish in cursing and a new variant in its ritual performance. Cursing practice had been influenced in the past by the washing rituals of the School of the Prophets. In the 1880s, cursing would cross-pollinate with temple ordinances, influenced by the oath of vengeance and incorporating the prayer circle. 

In 1880, Wilford Woodruff was president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The Church was under immense pressure from the federal government to end the practice of plural marriage. Woodruff recorded that God spoke to him, promising plagues, wrath, and judgment against the Church’s accusers. God’s anger was kindled against those in positions of govern mental authority, such as: 

the president of the United States, members of the Supreme Court, Cabinet, Senate, and House of Representatives; governors of various states and territories; judges and officials; Missouri and Illinois mobbers; and others who have taken part in persecuting you or Bringing distress upon you or your families or have sought your lives or sought to hinder you from keeping my Commandments or from enjoying the rights which the Constitutional Laws of the Land guarantee unto you. 

In an effort that bears striking resemblance to the oath of vengeance, a list was compiled of over 400 “Names of Persons, to be held in Remembrance before the Lord, For their Evil Deeds, and who have raised their hands against the Lord’s anointed.” The list included four U.S. presidents: Martin Van Buren, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James Buchanan.To secure God’s judgments against those on the list, Woodruff was instructed to gather the Twelve and wash their feet as a testimony against their enemies.The apostles were then to clothe themselves in temple robes and form a prayer circle. 

Woodruff describes the eventual performance of this ordinance in solemn terms: 

O Pratt was vary feeble yet we all performed the ordinance of washing our feet against Our Enemies And the Enemies of the Kingdom of God according to the Commandmet of God unto us. 

W. Woodruff opened By Prayer And John Taylor was Mouth in the washing of feet. At the Prayer Circle Lorenzo Snow was Mouth at the opening And Presidet JOHN TAYLOR was mouth at the Altar, and 

Presented the Prayer written By W. Woodruff (By request of Presidet Taylor) And the names were presented before the Lord according to the Commandment. 

It was truly a solomn scene and I presume to say it was the first thing of the Kind since the Creation of the world. . . . We were 3 hours in the Meeting & ordinances. 

The actual prayer, written by Woodruff and read by President John Taylor, reads in part: 

Now O Lord our God we bear our testimony against these men, befor Thee and the heavenly hosts and we bear testimony unto thee Our heavenly Father that we according to thy Commandments unto us we have gone alone by ourselves and Clensed our feet in pure wa ter and born testimony unto Thee and thy Son Jesus Christ and to the heavenly hosts against these wicked men by name as far as the spirit has manifested them unto us. We have borne our testimony against those who have shed the blood of thy Prophets and Apostles and anointed Ones, or have given Consent to their death and against those who have driven thy saints and imprisoned them and those who are still ready to deprive us of Life, Liberty and the privilege of keeping the Commandments of God. 

And now O Lord our God Thou hast Commanded us that when we have done this we should gather ourselves together in our holy Places and Clothed in the robes of the Holy Priesthood should unite ourselves together in Prayer and supplication and that we should bear our testimony against these men by name as far as wisdom should dictate. 

…O Lord hear us from heaven thy Holy dwelling place and answer our Peti[ti]ons Sustain thine anointed ones and deliver us from the hands of Our Enemies. Overthrow the Evil designs of the wicked and ungodly against thy Saints and break Evry weapon formed against us. 

This episode is notable for a shift in the provocation to curse. In the past, curses had been performed primarily against those who rejected a proselytizer’s message. Here the curse was called down upon the church’s political enemies. 

On one other known occasion, a prayer circle was formed with intent to curse. In 1889, a prayer circle was convened to curse R. N. Baskin, a lawyer who was actively engaged in the anti-polygamy crusades of the time.According to the journal of newly-ordained apostle Abraham H. Cannon, a group of nine church leaders convened on December 23, 1889. All but two of them were dressed in their temple robes. Each member took a turn acting as mouth for the prayer circle. Joseph F. Smith “was strongest in his prayer and urged that Baskin should be made blind, deaf and dumb unless he would repent of his wickedness.”It is unclear whether feet were dusted or washed in connection with this prayer circle. The Church was struggling to beat Baskin in the courtroom, and church leaders expressed their frustration by requesting that God stop the trouble at its source. 

Decline and Disappearance 

With the renunciation of polygamy in 1890, Mormonism continued its evolution from a small, persecuted sect toward a stable, respectable institution. As persecution declined, so too did the discourse and practice of ritual cursing. The last publicized endorsement of cursing by a general authority came from John W. Taylor in the April 1899 General Conference. “[This] is the way Christ is going to Judge the world, for He gave a special commandment that . . . if they reject you shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them, for it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment for the city of Sodom or Gomorrha than for that city or household that rejecteth you.” 

Around the time of Taylor’s address, church discourse shifted toward ignoring cursing or mentioning it only with some degree of antipathy. In response to inquiries regarding shaking the dust off one’s feet from President B. E. Rich of the Southern States Mission, George Reynolds of the Seventy was authorized by the First Presidency to write the following letter (dated March 11, 1899): 

I am directed by the First Presidency to say in reply to your favor that the business of the wholesale washing of feet, &c should not be indulged in by the elders. If an elder feels that he has just cause and is moved upon by the spirit of God to wash his feet against a person or persons who have violently or wickedly rejected the truth, let him do so quietly and beyond noting it in his journal let him not make it public. 

Nothing should be published in the “Southern Star“ or elsewhere on this subject. Elders should be privately instructed and should let the matter rest between them, the Lord and the persons concerned. George Reynolds 

Such a direct statement against the wholesale practice of cursing cast a shadow across the potential future of this ritual. Another mission president, Nephi Pratt, was recorded in the Conference Report for April 1906 as doubting the propriety of cursing. There had been “indifference manifested in the larger cities of [the Northwestern States mission], and we have some times thought that all had been done there that ought to be done there. . . . Al ways we had a doubt whether we ought to shake off the dust from our feet against some of the cities in the northwest.” 

Ritual cursing was not mentioned in general conference for the next sixty years. In April 1968, S. Dilworth Young spoke of the cursing ritual in a distinctly past tense. 

There have been times when we thought that if we approached a man and he, hostile because of stories he had heard about us, or suspicious because we were strangers, rebuffed us, then we had done our duty by shaking off the dust of our feet against him. We have not done that duty until we have given him a fair chance to learn that his prejudices are unfounded. 

In the sixty years of silence over the general conference pulpit, cursing was transitioning from a practiced ritual to a historical relic. Mormons had less cause to be interested in ritual cursing as they became more mainstream and less persecuted. The millenarian impulse that motivated early missionaries to shake the dust from their feet had waned. The 1946 edition of The Missionary’s Hand Book included as one of forty-two rules, “Bless, but do not curse.”Any mention of the ritual in church publications referred to cursing as something done in the past, not as a practice to be engaged in the present.An excerpt from the Doctrine and Covenants Compendium (published in 1960) is illuminating: 

Today it is not the general custom in the Church for our Elders on missions to shake off the dust of their feet against the people who do not receive them. In our time the Lord is giving men everywhere ample opportunity to receive the Gospel. Consequently, Elders may return to the same people time and time again, thus giving them every opportunity to receive the word of God before His judgments come unto them. 

President J. Reuben Clark mentioned the biblical dusting of one’s feet twice in his On the Way to Immortality and Eternal Life without ever discussing its parallel practice in the modern Church. Modern commentators have followed suit, mentioning cursing only as an interesting footnote in the church’s history. 

The disappearance of this ritual from Mormon liturgy may be due to a number of factors. The tone of church discourse on cursing evolved from commandment and instruction to caution and discouragement. With passing generations, the sense of Christ’s impending return lessened. When a missionary was rejected, it was no longer believed that the disbelieving parties had lost their one chance for salvation. The missionary mindset shifted from one of binding wheat and tares up to the day of destruction to one of returning to homes again and again to give people multiple chances to accept the gospel. With the move to Utah and subsequent renouncement of polygamy, Mormonism’s enemies became fewer and the accompanying physical violence was reduced. As Mormons gained control of their lives and their surroundings, the apparent need to shake the dust off their feet lessened. The spirit of doctrinal and liturgical innovation that permeated early Mormonism waned over time, particularly with the rise of Correlation in the 1960s. Together with the loss of other non-salvific Mormon ordinances (e.g., female healing blessings, baptism for health), there may have simply been no place in modern Mormonism for cursing. The modern Church’s heightened awareness of national attention and public relations would likely make the continued practice of cursing an embarrassment.

Although anecdotes describing present-day episodes of shaking the dust off one’s feet persist,mission presidents do not receive instruction from general authorities regarding the performance of this ritual. According to one former mission president, it is generally understood that to curse someone in the mission field today would be wholly inappropriate.No current Church handbook or manual lists cursing as an official ordinance.Although no longer formally practiced, curses live on in the form of missionary folkloreand Mormon fiction. 

Conclusion 

Mormon cursing flourished for a time, but by the 1900s it was extinct for all practical purposes. As the factors that had precipitated ritual cursing during the early days of Mormonism dissipated over time, performance of the ritual ceased. Modern Mormonism no longer consists of a small group of violently mistreated social outcasts as it once did. As the Church has become more stable and prosperous, its goals appear to be more geared toward integration and contribution to the surrounding community rather than separation from, and condemnation of, unbelieving Gentiles. While not denying cursing as part of its history, the Church has experienced a paradigm shift to a more blessing-focused theology. President Joseph F. Smith’s words from a 1904 general conference reflect on the practice of cursing while simultaneously looking forward to a future of love and redemption: 

[I]f they cursed, in the spirit of righteousness and meekness before God, God would confirm that curse; but men are not called upon to curse mankind; that is not our mission; it is our mission to preach righteousness unto them. It is our business to love and to bless them, and to redeem them from the fall and from the wickedness of the world. . . . We are perfectly willing to leave vengeance in the hands of God and let him judge between us and our enemies, and let him reward them according to his own wisdom and mercy. 

Without a powerful modern resurgence of liturgical innovation, Christian primitivism, millenarianism, or violent persecution, cursing is unlikely to reemerge as a practice within Mormonism. However, an appreciation of its role in the early restoration provides a fascinating window into the mindset of Mormonism’s founding generations.