We provide a complete transcription of George D. Wattโs Blood Stone Letter in two formats. Choose your preferred version below:
Brother Brigham,
The bearer came to me and desired the use of the blood stone[.] I immediately sent him to you, as you are the owner of it.
I think this is a good case to try the efficacy which tradition has given to it; but as to the risk of trusting the property in this personโs hands, that remains with yourself, for he is a stranger to me.
Your brother [etc.],
G. D. Watt
August 2nd[,] 1854
The letter is held by the Church History Library in the Brigham Young office files, General Correspondence Incoming, 2 August 1854, images 3โ4 (CHL CR 1234 1). It is a holograph letter from George D. Watt to Brigham Young, written in Wattโs economical Deseret cursive. The original can be viewed here.
Watt explains that a stranger had approached him about an amulet known as the blood stone. He referred the man to Brigham Young, whom he acknowledges as the owner of the object. Watt describes the encounter as an opportunity to test โthe efficacy which tradition has given to it,โ while recognizing that โtrusting the property in his handsโ involved risk.
Of particular paleographic and orthographic interest is Wattโs use of the character โจ๐งโฉ for the diphthong in mule.
The Pioneer Memorial Museum of the Daughters of Utah Pioneers in Salt Lake City preserves a โbloodstoneโ identified as item no. 1076. Its accompanying information states that the stone was said to have been given to Thomas Brown by Captain Cook in the 1700s, descended through the Brown family to 1851 pioneer Mary Ann Wood Brown, and was then given by her to Brigham Young. Young reportedly carried it โwhen going into unknown or dangerous places.โ The recorded donor is Marian J. Folsom.
This artifact is very likely the blood stone discussed in Wattโs letter. Mary Ann Wood Watt Brown was George D. Wattโs mother, the museum record places a Brown-family bloodstone in Brigham Youngโs possession, and Wattโs dated letter independently refers to such a stone while treating Young as its owner. The convergence of family provenance, object type, recipient, and ownership makes the identification highly probable.
The letter is significant because it records the stone not simply as a family keepsake, but as an object whose traditional efficacy might be tested. At the same time, Wattโs caution about entrusting it to a stranger shows that the amulet was regarded as valuable property as well as an object of inherited belief.