[toc]The Mormon church has been gradually releasing a series of essays on its official website, which attempt to explain challenging issues in Mormon history and doctrine. Most recently the church has published an essay entitled “Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints” which covers a broad range of controversial topics in Mormon history and attempts to explain them, as well as place them in a broader historical context.
In discussing the events leading up to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the authors of the essay acknowledge that the doctrine of Blood Atonement was taught by the highest levels of Church authority:
At times during the reformation, President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those who dissented from or opposed the Church. Drawing on biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, leaders taught that some sins were so serious that the perpetrator’s blood would have to be shed in order to receive forgiveness.
(“Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints“, lds.org)
This is the only reference made in the body of the text to “Blood Atonement”, and to a casual reader no further investigation may be warranted. The church appears to be acknowledging that it was an issue, but since they don’t dwell on it – it must not have been a very significant factor. Right?
The Footnote – A Can of Worms
This very brief allusion to blood atonement is marked by a footnote. If you click on it, then you can view a somewhat more detailed expansion on the topic of Blood Atonement. In the footnote the authors provide 2 examples of sermons in which members of the First Presidency spoke on the subject of Blood Atonement:
“See, for example, Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 4:53–54; and Heber C. Kimball, in Journal of Discourses, 7:16–21…”
By citing the Journal of Discourses, the authors validate the fact that they have long been considered reliable and actual records of early church teaching, despite recent disavowals. The correctness of the doctrine that was taught may still be called into question, but the Journal of Discourses is a reliable record of what was taught. The footnote continues:
“…This concept, which came to be known as blood atonement, was a stock component of anti-Mormon rhetoric in the 19th century.”
Okay, this is where the emotionally charged language is introduced to avoid dealing with facts. The authors simultaneously acknowledge the reality that blood atonement was taught, and categorize it as “anti-mormon” rhetoric. This is a deceptive rhetorical technique known as “poisoning the well“. The term “anti-mormon” is just as repulsive to a faithful LDS member as the term “anti-Semite” is to a devout Jew. As soon as you tag something with that label, church members immediately disregard or discount it. By associating Blood Atonement with “anti-mormon rhetoric” the authors are discounting Blood Atonement even while they affirm its reality! As I have written about before, Mormon leaders have labeled anything anti-mormon as spiritual pornography, and have counseled members to avoid it at all costs. By applying the term in this essay, the authors are encoding instructions to the members not to research those things any further than what is presented in these essays. Such a strong bias is not surprising given the source of the essay, however. The footnote continues:
“…While many of the exaggerated claims that appeared in the popular press and anti-Mormon literature are easily disproven, it is likely that in at least one instance, a few Latter-day Saints acted on this rhetoric.”
The authors suggest that there are exaggerated claims made which are easily disproven, but do not provide an example, or point to a source which does. The reader is asked to simply take their word. Again, the term “anti-mormon” is used to bias the reader against any further investigation. This sentence does actually admit something which has previously been denied by the church, which is that Blood Atonement had been acted upon by the members. Joseph Fielding Smith himself wrote a strong denial of this in Doctrines of Salvation. It is good that the authors are admitting this reality and their honesty on this point is refreshing (though it does reveal the deception of prior church leaders).
The footnote concludes by informing the readers of how they should dismiss concerns about the doctrine of blood atonement:
“…Nevertheless, most Latter-day Saints seem to have recognized that the blood atonement sermons were, in the words of historian Paul Peterson, “hyperbole or incendiary talk” that were “likely designed to frighten church members into conforming with Latter-day Saint principles. To Saints with good intentions, they were calculated to cause alarm, introspection, and ultimately repentance. For those who refused to comply with Mormon standards, it was hoped such ominous threats would hasten their departure from the Territory.”
In this section the authors appeal to an imaginary majority by claiming that “most” saints have come to view blood atonement a certain way. This is a deceptive rhetorical technique known as the “Bandwagon Fallacy“. There is no way this claim can be true, since most saints are not familiar with what was actually taught about that doctrine. It is not covered in the Sunday school lessons or seminary courses and most Mormons have been trying to avoid the “anti-mormon” sources which are the only places they can easily review the content of those sermons.
Next, by saying that those sermons on Blood Atonement were simply “hyperbole and incendiary talk” the authors are attempting to downplay the impact of the words and influence of early church prophets. This strains credibility. If the Ku Klux Klan were to declare that their teachings, which fueled the lynchings and persecutions they committed, were just hyperbole and incendiary talk – not to be taken literally, would you believe them?
By stating that “most” saints have come to dismiss concerns about blood atonement in such a way, the authors are using manipulative language designed to placate members, who will simply continue to trust church authorities without investigating for themselves.
Deciding For Yourself
I invite you to examine the doctrine of blood atonement, as taught by the early church leaders, for yourself. The authors of the essay claim that you will likely come to the conclusion that it is much ado about nothing and simply the result of a speaker or two getting overly ornate in their language and choice of metaphor.
I have compiled all of the official sermons and statements preaching Blood atonement that I can find and placed them at MormonBookshelf.com. I include it here for reference. Read it and decide for yourself:
Blood Atonement – What was Actually Taught
The doctrine of “Blood Atonement” asserts that there are certain sins for which the atonement and blood of Jesus Christ does not have the power to grant or impart forgiveness. For these sins, it is necessary that the guilty person die him or herself and shed their own blood in order to obtain forgiveness. It is not sufficient that the guilty person die just any death, but that death must include the spilling of blood on the ground, with allusion to smoke or incense raising therefrom to God as testimony of the deed. The death may either be voluntary or involuntary. If death is dealt by someone else, the act of killing is counted as righteousness for the killer as they are helping the guilty person to atone for sin and thereby achieve salvation.
The reader is invited to examine the statements of church leaders below to confirm this description of Blood Atonement and to examine the litany of sins for which Blood Atonement has been prescribed. In each case, a direct link to the source document has been provided where possible so that the reader may examine the full context of the quotation and determine it’s applicability for themself.
You will note that the method of death, when described, always allows for blood to be spilled upon the ground. Hanging, for example would not be sufficient, however beheading, cutting of the neck, spilling of the bowels, shooting would qualify. This is in harmony with the penalties that were a part of the Temple Endowment ceremony up until 1990.
Statements Confirming Blood Atonement
Like many doctrine unique to the Mormon faith, Blood Atonement can be traced back to Joseph Smith. Reed Peck was an early Mormon who was a member of the Danites. He was later disaffected from the church. He authored a manuscript which included the following account:
 “He [Joseph Smith] talked of dissenters and cited us to the case of Judas, saying that Peter told him in a conversation a few days ago that himself hung Judas for betraying Christ . . .”
Joseph Smith as cited in The Reed Peck Manuscript, p. 54. unconfirmed source
|
It is understandable that most Mormons would view this account with skepticism since Reed Peck had left the Saints and would not be considered a reliable source. Here Joseph allegedly introduced the idea that it may be considered a righteous act to kill someone in certain instances outside of traditional criteria for capital punishment. If Joseph had actually taught that the Apostles had killed Judas for betraying Christ, then a more reliable source would be needed to confirm this.
Heber C Kimball of the First Presidency provides confirmation of the death of Judas at the hands of the Apostles for breaking his covenant and betraying Christ in a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle on 13 December 1857:
 “Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. It is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out. “I will suffer my bowels to be taken out before I will forfeit the covenant I have made with Him and my brethren.” Do you understand me? Judas was like salt that had lost its saving principles—good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. . . . It is so with you, ye Elders of Israel, when you forfeit your covenants. . . . I know the day is right at hand when men will forfeit their Priesthood and turn against us and against the covenants they have made, and they will be destroyed as Judas was. “
(Heber C Kimball, December 13, 1857, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp. 125-126 archive.org)
|
Joseph Fielding Smith, who served for years as the Church Historian with access to all the church archives confirmed the origin of Blood Atonement with the teachings of the founding Prophet of the Church:
|
“TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.But man may commit certain grievous sins—according to his light and knowledge—that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone—so far as in his power lies—for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. . . .ATONEMENT AND SINS UNTO DEATH. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent.Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. . . . And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ.” (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City, 1954, vol. 1, pp. 133-136, archive.org)
|
Another account which confirms the early preaching of Blood Atonement in the Nauvoo period is a proclamation by Joseph Smith’s brother William given in 1845 stating that Brigham Young was teaching Blood Atonement—i.e., that a man might be killed to save his soul:
 “. . . I heard Brigham Young say, on the stand, that he was glad that Alvine Hodge was killed, . . . And he said further that it was far better for Alvine Hodge to die, than to live any longer in sin, for that he might now possibly be redeemed in the eternal world. That his murderers had done even a deed of charity for that such a man deserved to die.”
(William Smith, Warsaw Signal, October 29, 1845, sidneyrigdon.com)
|
The brother of the prophet again confirmed the reality of Blood Atonement in an 1893 trial testimony where he stated the following:
 “I left Nauvoo in 1845 because my life was in danger if I remained there, because of my objections and protests against the doctrine of blood atonement and other new doctrines that were brought into the church.(William Smith testimony, 1893 Temple Lot Case, page 98, archive.org)
|
While the doctrine of Blood Atonement was not frequently discussed in public during the Nauvoo period, once the saints had relocated to Utah, the doctrine was boldly and repeated preached over the pulpit.
Brigham Young, the second President of the Church, made these statements in a sermon:
|
“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine, but it is to save them, not to destroy them. . . .And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine, but you do not understand it.
(Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 53-54 archive.org; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, p. 235 Utah Digital Newspaperspage 3, column 3)
|
 “Some have received the Priesthood and a knowledge of the things of God, and still they dishonor the cause of truth, commit adultery, and every other abomination beneath the heavens, and then meet you here or in the street, and deny it.These are the abominable characters that we have in our midst, and they will seek unto wizards that peep, and to star-gazers and soothsayers, because they have no faith in the holy Priesthood, and then when they meet us, they want to be called Saints.The same characters will get drunk and wallow in the mire and filth, and yet they call themselves Saints, and seem to glory in their conduct, and they pride themselves in their greatness and in their abominations.They are the old hardened sinners, and are almost—if not altogether—past improvement, and are full of hell, and my prayer is that God’s indignation may rest upon them from the crown of their heads to the soles of their feet.I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood.We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye.You may think that I am not teaching you Bible doctrine, but what says the apostle Paul? I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood. “
(2nd Counselor in the First Presidency, Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 49-50, archive.org)
|
 “. . . under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must have their own blood shed to atone for their sins . . .
(Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, 1958 ed., p. 87, unavailable online)
|
 “. . . what is needful for the salvation of the soul where one’s sins place him beyond the reach of vicarious means of salvation—then it is the shedding of the sinners own blood that must here be referred to.”
(Assistant Church Historian, B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, by B. H. Roberts, 1965 ed., vol. 4, p. 129, also published in Americana Magazine, 1913, pg. 467 archive.org)
|
“The concept here voiced, known more popularly as the doctrine of blood atonement, laid the foundation for the establishment of capital punishment in Utah for murder. Its basis is theological, asserting that there are certain crimes which the atonement of Christ will not cover, . . . the individual himself must pay the debt either here or hereafter. Hence, in some cases it was deemed proper to take the life of such persons through the shedding of their blood, that mercy might have claim upon them in the day of redemption.
(Joseph Smith and World Government, by Hyrum L. Andrus, Salt Lake City, 1963, p. 107, archive.org, Footnote 50)
“To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his step-daughter by a bishop’s court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the Reformation.
(Gustive O. Larson, Professor of Church History at the Brigham Young University, Utah Historical Quarterly, January 1958, p. 62, n. 39,archive.org)
What Crimes Required Blood Atonement?
With the theological framework in place which justifies the shedding of the blood of guilty individuals in order to atone for sin which is not covered by Christ’s atonement, the next question is what sins, exactly, were taught as those for which Blood Atonement may be applied. Keep in mind that the shedding of innocent blood was specifically forbidden. Because of this, any time a leader alludes to killing or shedding of blood of an individual who is guilty of a particular sin, then the implication is that this is a sin for which Blood Atonement is justified.
Several sins were identified by early church leaders for which killing of the guilty party was considered a justified remedy under the auspices of Blood Atonement.
Murder
|
“In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.
(History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 5, p. 296, archive.org)
|
The Mormon people apparently took Joseph Smith very serious when he talked of beheading for they incorporated this into their laws in Utah:
“In accordance with the law of Utah, the doomed man was given his choice of three methods of execution—hanging, shooting or beheading.”
(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee”, Introduction, p. xix view original)
Utah is the only US state or territory which has ever allowed beheading as a form of execution.
“Even the law of territorial Utah, as we have explained in the Introduction, allowed John D. Lee, or any other man condemned to death, toelect to be beheaded as a means of saving his immortal soul by the shedding of his blood.”
(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee”, Introduction, p.129view original)
Brigham Young and George Q Cannon wrote about this law in an 1879 newspaper article saying:
 “The extreme penalty was inflicted today upon Wallace Wilkerson who unlawfully shed the blood of a fellow creature. He shot William Baxter at Tintic, June 11th, 1877, in a dispute over a game of cards. He has atoned for that deed as far as it is possible so to do by the pouring out of his own blood. Thus the divine law has been executed and human law honored. The culprit preferred shooting to hanging or decapitation. This was his privilege under our local statutes… The dignity of the law, the demands of justice and the protection of the Commonwealth, can just as well be subserved by sending a bullet into a murderer’s breast as by choking the life out of him with the rope. And the divine law prescribes blood shedding, the smoke from the crimson life-stream ascending in token of atonement; but “cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.””
(“The Death Penalty for Murder”. Deseret Evening News (George Q. Cannon, Brigham Young). May 16, 1879. p. 2. google.com)
|
 “. . . the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death.”
(Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, vol. 1, p. 136, archive.org)
|
|
“As a mode of capital punishment, hanging or execution on a gallows does not comply with the law of blood atonement, for the blood is not shed.”
(Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, 1958 ed., p. 314, unavailable online)
|
Japanese District and Family Court Judge Hiroshige Takasawa, after more than a year of research studies of Utah’s “unique” form of capital punishment, has found “evidence that present laws stem from early Mormon philosophy of blood atonement.” Judge Takasawa, a visiting Fulbright research scholar in criminology at the University of Utah, sits on the bench of the Nagoya District Court and Family Court at Toyohashi, Japan. The judge said that through extensive study of the first days of the Mormon pioneers he has found “a possible relationship” between current death sentences and “early days of violence vs. violence.” Beginning with the premise, “There must be a background to Utah’s unique form of capital punishment—a system which affords a convicted person a choice of death by hanging or shooting,” Judge Takasawa sought information and materials from state law enforcement agencies and penal officials. (Salt Lake Tribune, January 28, 1968, p. 4C, unavailable online)
Adultery and Immorality
|
“Modern governments do not take the life of the adulterer, and some of them have done away with the supreme penalty where murder is involved—all of which is further evidence of the direful apostacy that prevails among the peoples who call themselves Christians.”
(Apostle Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958 ed., p. 104, unavailable online)
|
|
“Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you wouldbe justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands . . .There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; . . .”
(President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247, archive.org)
|
 “The people of Utah are the only ones in this nation who have taken effectual measures . . . to prevent adulteries and criminal connections between the sexes. The punishment in that territory, for these crimes is DEATH TO BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.”
(All Caps in original, Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, Washington City, D.C., 1854, p. 223, archive.org)
|
|
“. . . the citizens of that Territory think more of their virtue than they do of their lives. They know, that if they have any connections out of the marriage covenant, they not only forfeit their lives by the law of God, but they forfeit their salvation also.”
(Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, Washington City, D.C., 1854., p. 42, archive.org)
|
|
“These are my views, and the Lord knows that I believe in the principles of sanctification; and when I am guilty of seducing any man’s wife, or any woman in God’s world, I say, sever my head from my body.”
(1st Presidency member Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 20, archive.org)
|
|
“But they cannot whore it here; for, gentlemen, if there is anything of that kind, we will slay both men and women. We will do it, as the Lord liveth—we will slay such characters. Now, which would be the most worthy to be slain—the woman that had had her endowments and made certain covenants before God, or the man that knew nothing about it? The woman, of course.”
(1st Presidency member Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 38, archive.org)
|
|
“. . . our females . . . are not unclean, for we wipe all unclean ones from our midst: we not only wipe them from our streets, butwe wipe them out of existence…so help me God, while I live, I will lend my hand to wipe such persons out: and I know this people will.”
(1st Presidency member Heber C Kimball, Millennial Star, vol. 16, p. 739, archive.org; also printed in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 19,archive.org)
|
 “The principle, the only one that beats and throbs through the heart of the entire inhabitants of this Territory, is simply this: The man who seduces his neighbors wife must die, and her nearest relative must kill him!“
(Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 97, archive.org)
|
|
“It is not so much polygamy that they are opposed to, but they hate this people because they strive to be pure, and will not believe in whoredom and adultery, but declare death to the man who is found guilty of those crimes.“
( President Brigham Young, May 22, 1859, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 146, archive.org)
|
“Adultery was both a major sin and a capital offense in Mormon eyes.”
(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee”, footnote 135 on page 128, hathitrust.org)
“Lee’s solemn warning related to the doctrine of blood atonement. Many early Mormons believed that the sin of adultery was so grievous that only the shedding of the sinner’s blood could atone for it. There are many references to the seriousness of this offense. Esias Edwards, for example, tells in his diary how his son-in-law, Frank Sadler, was forced to flee to save his life after a second transgression.”
(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee” footnote 101 on pages 332-333 of page 128, hathitrust.org)
Stealing
|
“President Joseph Smith said, I think it best to continue this subject. I want the elders to make honorable proclamation abroad concerning what the feelings of the first presidency is, for stealing has never been tolerated by them. I despise a thief above ground.“
(Prophet Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 4, pp. 183-184, archive.org)
|
|
“President Young then spoke against thieving, . . . said he, I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut; some of you may say, if that is your feelings Brigham, we’ll lay you aside sometime, well, do it if you can; I would rather die by the hands of the meanest of all men, false brethren, than to live among thieves.”
(History of the Church, vol. 7, p. 597, archive.org)
|
|
“If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity. . . . if I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do, to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people. I know this appears hard, and throws a cold chill over our revered traditions received by early education. I had a great many such feelings to contend with myself, and was as much of a sectarian in my notions as any other man, and as mild, perhaps, in my natural disposition, but I have trained myself to measure things by the line of justice, to estimate them by the rule of equity and truth, and not by the false traditions of the fathers, or the sympathies of the natural mind. If you will cause all those whom you know to be thieves, to be placed in a line before the mouth of one of our largest cannon, well loaded with chain shot, I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not. I would consider it just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of his sins. That is a short discourse on thieves, I acknowledge, but I tell you the truth as it is in my heart. “
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 108-109, archive.org)
|
 “It would have a tendency to place a terror on those who leave these parts, that may prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or shot down before the public . . . I believe it to be pleasing in the sight of heaven to sanctify ourselves and put these things from our midst.”
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 73, archive.org)
|
Using the Name of the Lord in Vain
|
“. . . I tell you the time is coming when that man uses the name of the Lord is used the penalty will be affixed and immediately beexecuted on the spot . . . “
(Brigham Young as quoted in the journal of LDS diarist Hosea Stout; On the Mormon Frontier, The Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 1, p. 76,BOAP.org)
|
Not Receiving the Gospel
|
“The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall ask, “Are you for God?” and if you are not heartily on the Lord’s side, you will be hewn down.”
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 226, archive.org)
|
Marriage to African
|
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110, archive.org)
|
Covenant Breaking
When Mormons go through the Temple and are married and receive their endowment, they make a series of covenants with God. Mormons consider these to be very sacred and secret and there is an injunction against them talking about it outside the temple. When the endowment ceremony was created and for over a century until 1990, there was a penalty accompanying each covenant in which the member pantomimed a method of death that they would be subject to if they violated that covenant. This should be kept in mind when reviewing the following quotes as well as the quotes regarding adultery, since marriage is also a form of temple covenant to faithful Mormons.
|
“I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood.We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye. . . . I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood. . . .We have been trying long enough with this people, and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word, but in deed. . . .Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid. “
(2nd Counselor in the First Presidency, Jedediah M. Grant, Deseret News, vol. 6, p. 235, reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 49-51, archive.org)
|
|
“What disposition ought the people of God to make of covenant breakers . . . What does the Apostle say? He says they are worthy of death. . . .What! do you believe that people would do right, and keep the law of God, by actually putting to death the transgressors? Putting to death transgressors would exibit the law of God, no difference by whom it was done; that is my opinion.You talk of the doings of different governments, the United States if you please. . . . Do traitors to that government forfeit their lives? . . . But people will look into books of theology, and argue that the people of God have a right to try people for fellowship, but they have no right to try them on property or life. That makes the devil laugh, saying, I have got them on a hook now; . . .But if the Government of God on earth, and Eternal Priesthood, with the sanction of High Heaven, in the midst of all his people, has passed sentence on certain sins when they appear in a person, has not the people of God a right to carry out that part of his law as well as any other portion of it? It is their right to baptize a sinner to save him, and it is also their right to kill a sinner to save him, when he commits those crimes that can only be atoned for by shedding his blood. If the Lord God forgives sins by baptism, and . . . certain sins cannot be atoned for . . . but by the shedding of the blood of the sinner, query, whether the people of God be overreaching the mark, if they should execute the law . . . We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him. . . .. . . If you shall thus advance, and then turn and trample the holy commandments of God under your feet, and break your sacred and solemn covenants, and become traitors to the people of God, would you not be worthy of death? I think you would.Do you think it would be any sin to kill me if I were to break my covenants? . . . Do you believe you would kill me if I broke the covenants of God, and you had the Spirit of God? Yes; and the more Spirit of God I had, the more I should strive to save your soul by spilling your blood, when you had committed sin that could not be remitted by baptism.”
(2nd Counselor in the First Presidency, Jedediah M. Grant, Deseret News, July 27, 1854)
|
|
“. . . for if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be d*mned, and that too according to their covenants”
(1st Counselor in First Presidency, Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 375, archive.org).
|
Apostasy
|
“I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife. (Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices, generally, “go it, go it.”) If you say it is right, raise your hands. (All hands up.) Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.”
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 83, archive.org)
|
|
“Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and Father and being exalted, the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “Shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?”All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed.That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?… I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil . . . I have known a great many men who left this church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them, the wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbids this principle’s being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will been in full force.This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.”
(Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857, printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 219-220, archive.org)
|
|
“God designs we should be pure men, holding the oracles of God in holy and pure vessels; but when it is necessary that blood should be shed, we should be as ready to do that as to eat an apple . . . we will let you know that the earth can swallow you up, as it did Korah with his host; and as brother Taylor says, You may dig your graves, and we will slay you, and you may crawl into them.“
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp. 34-35, archive.org)
|
John D. Lee “had seen many cases, among them that of Nephi Stewart, wherein a man was ruined financially and his life endangered by a public announcement that he had been cut off the Church”
(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “John Doyle Lee: zealot, pioneer, builder, scapegoat”, p. 293 hathitrust.org).
Lying
|
“I preached on the condition of the Camp of Israel—. . . and warned those who lied and stole and followed Israel that they would have their heads cut off, for that was the law of God and it should be executed.”
(Brigham Young, “Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” December 20, 1846, typed copy, google.com)
|
Counterfeiting
|
“We investigated several orders purporting to be drawn by J. Allen, Lieut. Col., signed by James Pollick; which I requested should be burned. I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing and counterfeiting their throats should be cut.”
(Brigham Young, “Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” February 24, 1847, typed copy google.com)
|
Condemning Joseph Smith or Approving of His Death
|
“A man may live here with us and worship what God he pleases or none at all, but he must not blaspheme the God of Israel or d*mn old Joe Smith or his religion, for we will salt him down in the lake.”
(Brigham Young as quoted by Norton Jacob; Norton Jacob Diary, Archives, Church History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. full sermon)
|
 “About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant. . . . Bro. Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met a man who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible feeling as he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, “Just as I have always looked upon it—that it was a d—d cold-blooded murder.” The cloud immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open pocket knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this man given his approval to that murder of the prophets he would have immediately struck him to the heart.“
(Joseph F. Smith as recorded in the journal of Abraham H. Cannon, “Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon,” December 6, 1889, pp. 205-206,archive.org)
|
|
“I will tell you how much I love those characters. If they had any respect to their own welfare, they would come forth and say, whether Joseph Smith was a Prophet or not, “We shed his blood, and now let us atone for it;” and they would be willing to have their heads chopped off, that their blood might run upon the ground, and the smoke of it rise before the Lord as an incense for their sins. I lovethem that much.”
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 186, archive.org)
|
If you managed to read through all the above references and still believe that Blood Atonement was just a result of a couple of leaders choosing an exaggerated metaphor or using unnecessarily dramatic poetic language – not to be taken literally or seriously, then you would be a remarkable person indeed.
Blood Atonement and the Mountain Meadows Massacre
Much has been said about whether or not Brigham Young was aware of, ordered, or approved of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Those considerations pale in significance compared to the impact of the Blood Atonement doctrine. Why do I say this? Well, imagine that your current stake president tells you that it is God’s will that you both go and kidnap and kill a certain person who has recently left the church and been vocal about criticisng the church and its leaders – would you do it? Of course not! This is because you have been taught that murder is wrong and that there is no justification which would come from God in such a manner. You would reject the instructions and authority of your Stake President and would likely turn them into both church and legal authorities to make sure that no harm comes to anyone else. The men who were responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre did not have this same doctrinal foundation. They had been taught all of the above things about how murder may be justified and considered an act of charity when applied to those who are guilty.
It is only because of this doctrine of Blood Atonement, which originated with Joseph Smith and was magnified by Brigham Young, that the members complied when the instructions from the Stake President and other leaders came down that the members of the Fancher party were to be killed.
In the end, it is not as important if Brigham Young had issued the order, because he had already prepared the minds of the saints to accept and execute such an atrocity and to consider it righteousness for doing so.
A Common Modern Take on Blood Atonement
There is a perspective that I originally held when encountering superficial information about Blood Atonement as a believing Mormon who was not aware of the facts. I have seen it frequently held by other Mormons that I speak with. This is the idea that Blood Atonement is true doctrine, but may only be applied to cases of murder.
The challenging issue with this perspective is that it is in violation of Mormon Scripture itself.
“Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.”
(Alma 34:11-14, lds.org)
Note in this scripture that there is no caveat carved out for the sin of murder or allusion to the sacrifice of the Son of God being short of infinite with exceptions in cases of murder. It specifically says that the last sacrifice of the Son of God would put a “stop to the shedding of blood”.
Mormons have a powerful need to hold onto the idea of there being some correct application of Blood Atonement, however. Letting go of Blood Atonement carries some difficult implications for a faithful Mormon. You would then have to accept that those men taught as the Law of God something which is completely repugnant to the concept of salvation by the grace of Christ. This would then reveal them to be anything but true men of God. Then you have to deal with the implications of that conclusion.
It is much easier to simply not examine the reality of Church History in this regard and the Church Essay is very instrumental in providing just enough information and superficial rationalization to put members minds at ease and convince them that they have examined the issue and are at peace with it and the church.
Conclusion
With this recent essay, the church has acknowledged several challenging issues which it had previously denied or hidden from the view of its members. Now that you are able to read this material from the church itself, you must decide what to do with this new information. Each person will come to their own conclusions.
This is my personal take on it, I invite you to share yours in the comments below:
Click here to learn more
There is a saying that “there will always be bad men who do bad things and good men who do good things, but it takes a religion to make good men do bad things.” This doesn’t mean that every religion will produce these results, but the degree of control some religions maintain is powerful enough to induce its members to override their own conscience.
The doctrine of Blood Atonement is one of the most erroneous, dangerous and un-Christian doctrines that could ever be conceived. Satan himself could not come up with a more sinister means of twisting the notions of salvation and atonement into a message which condones the slaughter of fellow human beings. It is absolutely false doctrine. Having read the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, I would immediately reject these teachings if I were to hear them come from today’s church leaders. The New Testament was the same back in the 1800’s and I would have rejected Blood Atonement then as well.
Any man who claims to speak with the power and authority of God one day and preaches Blood Atonement the next is revealed to be anything but a true messenger from God. That man, and anything else that he would put forward as revelation or God’s Law, should be absolutely rejected, and the fact of his deception should be shouted from the rooftops and Interwebs so as to prevent others from falling prey to its poisonous effects. It would reveal that man and any church he had formed to be absolutely and utterly false and anything but Christian.
If the Church was not true then, its not true now.
Wow. Now I’m wondering how I could have been considered Christian as a practicing Mormon for all of those years since the original teachings of the church were that Christ’s atonement was NOT sufficient (directly contradicting Christian faith in the supremacy of the atonement of Christ). Basically these leaders all threw Christ’s atonement under the bus and went back to “an eye for an eye”.
No, they did NOT throw Christ’s atonement “under the bus.” This is much to do about a single thing. This is all hyperbole from a bunch of people that try to explain the whole gospel with single verse references. You have to look at the WHOLE picture to get it.
Much truth was removed from the bible by men who had everything to gain from it. Denying it does nothing. YOU cannot change the gospel by your comments.
Apparently you only think the bible is correct now. There are WAY more contradictory statements in that one book than in all latter day revelation combined.
Brilliant post.
The Mormon Blood Atonement doctrine is simply a more comprehensive version of this (1 Cor 5:5) New Testament doctrine in verse 5 below:
1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Again:
To deliver such an one unto Satan FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH, that THE SPIRIT MAY BE SAVED in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Finally, I got around to reading your treatise on Mormon History and the “Blood Atonement”. First thank you for bringing up a lot of interesting sources regarding prominent people of that time in Mormon History. A lot of the “Blood Atonement” as mentioned here reminds me of what has been said regarding sinning against the Holy Ghost (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/holy-ghost-unpardonable-sin-against). Which is considered an unpardonable sin.
While I disagree with your interpretation of the foot note provided ( I’d call it a straw man ) I do agree that the footnote does establish that there were people who used their interpretation of the “Blood Atonement” in their actions.
One example you provided, and I note here, is available via the courtroom arguments by George A. Smith in his defense of Howard Egan – a man who killed another man for sleeping with and impregnating his wife before Judge Z. Snow (http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9599/rec/1) its evident that the community as a whole had already established as law in their then territory of the United States that adultery was punishable by death to the man (not the woman, as far as I read – which makes me wonder about your quote from Orson Pratt ). The reason? Protecting women from the culture of their surroundings which would leave her and her newborn without family, work, or sustenance. G. Smith then makes an interesting comparison that the “death sentence” levied against women as just described was not particular to his territory but existed in all other communities. Only that other communities let the men do it over and over for a “dime” of monetary damages on their part(which sounds a lot like today http://time.com/3087616/defense-johns-legalize-prostitution/ ). I wonder how far off base Smith was in his context (if at all). I guess my rhetorical question is how much of Egan’s context was influenced by “hyperbole/incendiary talk”, how much was culturally driven, and how much excuse did any married man (outside this community) need to claim he’d been disrespected and have a shoot out?
Sorry for the tangent but it was interesting. As it was the only real case I could see you bringing up where someone had actually done the deed of killing someone (albeit a weak example). If you have more they would be appreciated reads. The rest you provided are good examples of emphasis.
One example of emphasis comes when you claim BY stated that a person who marries an african american should be put to death. After reading the discourse its apparent that he isn’t referring to marriage at all but of the particular context of slavery in the south at the time which he sees the proponents using their station of power to inflict further abuses to the women referenced by the “South who make slaves” and that if any Mormon be caught doing the same he should be put to death. While I wouldn’t be surprised if BY was prejudice to some degree (as he refers to seed of Cain – and that doesn’t have any positive connotation) I think in this instance he is placing more worth on the black woman then the white man. So while I can see the interpretation you’ve put forth I adopt a sense of pride that despite the context of Brigham Young where he could have adopted either fork being in a largely unregulated territory in a time when there were “law abiding” communities that adopted slavery and the raping of slaves as acceptable (tacitly atleast) and he sided with black women. As for the death of these type of men was he referring to their actual death or death as in separation from God being an “immediate” death as from the hand of God. I interpret this talk as the latter explanation. Maybe you have some more examples of real death inflicted. Please share.
Either way thanks for the article and attention.
Thanks for your feedback Marc. A few questions:
You stated: “A lot of the “Blood Atonement” as mentioned here reminds me of what has been said regarding sinning against the Holy Ghost …Which is considered an unpardonable sin.”
Okay. This is an interesting observation – I am just wondering what you are referring to. Where does God call for individuals to have their blood spilled to personally atone for sinning against the Holy Ghost? Even if you accept that idea, you might apply it to Apostasy – but what of all the other instances. Why would these prophets also call for the shedding of blood for adultery, murder, thieving, etc?
Next,
I am not sure what case you making regard George A Smiths arguments. He was acting as an attorney and as such it was his job to find an interpretation of law which would exonerate his client. Common law being what it is does not mean that any man can be judge jury and executioner. He acknowledge that you couldn’t find any written law on the matter. If he is appealing to the sentiments of the community then it is just as reasonable to assume that he is making the case that Blood Atonement, as believed by the predominantly mormon community, justifies his client in taking the mans life, since that is the commonly held belief of the community. This does not help the case of people who want to disbelieve the reality of Blood Atonement.
Regarding your analysis of Brigham Youngs statement on Racial Intermarriage – why would you assume that his call for killing in that one instance really doesn’t mean killing, when there are so many other examples provided above where it is unambiguous? Why would you take pride in knowing that BY didn’t want slaves to be raped? If he really put the value of the black woman at it’s worth – he would have made slavery illegal. The fact that he didn’t is reprehensible in the extreme for a man claiming to be God’s mouthpiece. His call to kill people who “mix seed” is just a more extreme version of the warnings against inter-racial marriage that still exist in LDS priesthood manuals (see the Humble Pie of racism article recently posted).
Finally
There are so many unambiguous statements above referring to the actual physical death of a person – including the methods of execution. Why would you entertain the idea that they were only talking metaphorically about spiritual death?
The thing that really strikes me about all these examples is how all of them completely conflict with the concept of Christ’s atonement for all sin. The church today completely denies what is said in these quotes by the prophets and apostles of the age. Does God’s atonement change?
Thanks for your thoughtful insights.
-Jon
As for my observation regarding sin against the Holy Ghost and the “Blood Atonement”. The observation had to do with both topics referring to unpardonable sin. The “Blood Atonement” referenced here seems to describe the terrible situation of a person who has committed an unpardonable sin, and as BY states “if” a man knew his situation and what he was due in the world to come (or not due depending on how you see the glass) he would readily sacrifice himself. Whether or not this situation is even possible is what makes me think its really a spiritual hypothetical used to emphasize the need for introspection. Since my thought is that a sinner in this state of committing an unpardonable sin is so far removed from the things of God in his heart that he’s unlikely to be willing to even consider such actions of “Blood Atonement”. Anyways, as I referenced earlier the likeness lies in that both deal with unpardonable sin and its existence. I didn’t say or attempt to insinuate that they share a likeness in the manner of punishment (if any) or death. Of course lesser pardonable sins have called for a man to cut off his hand, cut off his foot, pluck out his eye, and other unpleasantries, and people have been brought to immediate death for considerably less in the NT where a man and his wife both died instantly upon lying to an apostle. Christ said it would be better for child abusers to be thrown with a heavy stone into the sea. These are just a few off the top of my head, I haven’t looked for instances.
As for my comments on George Smith – as I already referred it *was* a tangent and had little to do with blood atonement since there were many examples of other non-mormon communities that with the same input that got the same output (as referenced by G. Smith in defense of his client). Which then takes us back to the purpose of the tangent: my rhetorical question (refer to my statement).
As for your statements on BY – I concede that Brigham Young was not perfect — but is this news to anyone inside or outside the church? I think that considering his circumstances and his ability to take the better part though not extreme was admirable. We build on the shoulders of those who preceded us and the shoulders of the time accepted slavery. Would I have acted as nobly? Assuming I would have done better or more would be pretentious. As for why he didn’t make a law against slavery – Why would BY make a law against slavery? Were mormons known to have slaves? Looking at other historical comments that have been made about converts of the time who had slaves and tried and failed at selling their slaves to other Mormons denotes 1) that slavery wasn’t widely adopted as there was no market and 2) that possibly his teachings pointed members to see the folly of slavery instead of finding excuses to also adopt it like other communities of the time. From my own perspective there are many protests I’ve not participated in despite my deep held beliefs that would align me to a certain cause. Would I participate while fighting for a menial existance 500 miles away from civilization? Probably not. Back to the issue though, from what you’ve cited and I’ve read he mentions that the man should die – not the woman – when a white man takes advantage of his station as a law abiding slave holder to rape his slave. There is no marriage mentioned here – So I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Interracial marriage is mentioned in other hand books (or was) but not in context of sin as there are interracial temple marriages. Maybe you have another reference I’m missing, please share it. Again this isn’t to say that BY was an abolotionist, he wasn’t by his own admission, but he was also not Pro Slavery, again by his own admission (Journal of Discourses Vol 10 pp 110).
I only allude to the possibility of these statements being used to emphasize a point since there hasn’t been evidence presented of a “Blood Atonement” happening physically. Plus from the majority of these quotes it seems to emphasize that it would be auto-“Blood Atonement” since an offering not given willingly is of no effect, and isn’t that the point of “Blood Atonement” as described here?
With regards to your observation of Christ’s atonement for all sin. This ties back to my observation made at the beginning where unpardonable sin is referred to by the apostles who followed Christ. If you follow the link I posted it has the appropriate NT citations.
Finally, where does the church deny what is said in these quotes? Aren’t the quotes readily available in the transcripts ordered by BY? Maybe I missed one of your citations. From what I see they don’t accept them as core doctrine and so haven’t been included by BY in the standard works. The possibility of a member taking them literally, as was mentioned by the original church article cited, could be the reason they were omitted from the temple ordinances since the 1990’s you cited(I’d like a reference for that too). As Brigham Young states in Journal of Discourse V.4 pp 54 ( http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9596/rec/4 ) he had problems with his words being misunderstood by members of the congregation. This might explain his later statement (assuming they’re chronological) in Journal of Discourses Vol 10 pp 111 where he states ” I say to all men and all women, submit to God…cease your quarelling, and stay the shedding of each other’s blood”.
Thanks for your responses, Jon.
1. Sins under Blood Atonement are not “unpardonable” they are pardonable by shedding of ones own blood. It’s not the same thing.
2. You appear to be appealing to your understanding of the Law of Moses as justification for the teachings on blood atonement. This is inconsistent with LDS theology. the Law and it’s punishments are not a part of Mormon Christian theology as it is taught today.
3. The New testament stories of the couple dying and it being better that a child abuse die were not tied to a specific theological principle that their sins would not be covered by Christ’s atonement. It is very clear in 19th century mormon blood atonement teaching that the spilling of blood is necessary because Christ’s atonement is insufficient for their sins. This is completely out of harmony with modern LDS teachings. You cannot use the former to justify the latter.
4. There were not many communities of non-LDS that used a theological framework of blood atonement to legally and religiously justify a man taking the life of his wife’s adulterer. There just isn’t. You can’t just say “plenty of communities were doing that – so it’s okay” without actually providing an example. Even if you were to provide an example – ask yourself. Why was it okay for prophets to teach this as God’s law back then, but it would not be okay today?
5. We are not talking about BY just not being perfect. We are talking about him teaching God’s Doctrine as fact in the capacity of a prophet – which we now acknowledge is completely contradictory to Christian principles. He taught these things with the exact same authority and emphasis that the modern prophet teaches principle. BY taught many different things as God’s Law and Truth which are now completely disavowed. Adam-God, Blood Atonement and his racist teachings are among them. He was not able to discern truth from Error. He was a prophet of God so we can reasonably expect him to be enlightened on fundamental things such as the nature of Christ’s atonement and racial equality. If he was only relying on the strnegth and knowledge of Man, then we might excuse his racism and theological expeditions – but he supposedly had the Priesthood of God and could speak for him. Just read this page to see how weighty the voice of the prophet should be considered: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-2-the-living-prophet-the-president-of-the-church?lang=eng The fact that BY was so wrong, so frequently betray the notion that he had any legitimate prophetic power.
6. Joseph Smith taught Brigham the principles of God regarding slavery. Joseph laid out his position in a letter which I previously wrote about here – including a comparison with a contemporary non-lds christian view which provides a stark contrast: http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/joseph-smith-vs-the-abolitionsts/
Slaves came with the pioneers into utah valley: http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/slaveryinutah.html
The Church accepted a slave as payment of tithing, serving Brigham Young and Heber Kimball as a slave for 2 years before being freed: http://ilovehistory.utah.gov/people/difference/flake.html If BY was so forward thinking, why didnt he just free the man – or refuse to accept him as tithing because you cannot put a monetary value on something which you cannot own – another human being.
In a speech january 1852 speech before the Utah legislature, Prophet and Governor BY stated the following:
” I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences; I am not authorized to remove it. I am a firm believer in slavery.
Now to the case before us with regard to slavery, with regard [to] slaves that [are] Africans, or that are English, or that [are] Dutch, or ourselves–I go in for making just such laws as we want upon that matter, independent of any other nation under the heavens; let us do that [which will bring about what] we want to be done regardless of the abuses of despotic governments. Whether they deem it to be right or wrong is no matter to me, but to do the thing we ought to do, to secure those blessings we are in pursuit of, ought to be the first and most weighty consideration with us; that is my mind upon this matter. This case comes up and causes feelings of not a pleasing character in the minds of some.”
He makes it very clear that he believes in slavery and it is ordained of God – he also makes it clear that if he did not believe slavery was right- they would make it legal – regardless of what the US or any other govt said about it. They legalized it.
The next month, in another speech before the legislature he stated:
” I am as much oposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing that which God has decreed, to take, a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species. Under these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them”
He made it clear that he didn’t support *cruel* slavery – but felt that compassionate slavery was ordained of God. He states that the slaves actually have it better off than the masters under his notion of slavery.
both these speeches can be viewed here: http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2013/12/official-explanation-of-race-and.html
6. You seem to be dwelling on the distinction of whether “mixing seed” refers to rape or inter-racial marriage. If you actually read the context rather than an apologetic FAIR article on it – you can see that he is not talking about rape and defending black womens honor. FAIR famously explained away this quote by convoluting an idea that he was talking about rape. They used to have an article about it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20121005024407/http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Brigham_Young/Race_mixing_punishable_by_death/Master-slave_race_mixing but they have since removed it and now it just point to the race and the priesthood essay here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Brigham_Young/Race_mixing_punishable_by_death
The apologists are having to back away from the distortions. don’t just read what they tell you to think and repeat it here.It may be that you didn’t get this idea from FAIR. chances are that you got it from someone who did.
7. Does it matter whether it is auto-blood atonement or someone else doing the killing? either notion is completely anti-Christian. Why would such an argument exonerate the leaders who taught it?
8. If you ask a general authority today if the church believes in Blood Atonement as it was taught by the quotes above – do you think they would say yes? When dealing with an adulter do the leaders currently “appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood”?
If you want proof of the blood shedding penalties as part of the temple ceremony up until the 1990’s look here: http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1szz0z/havent_seen_this_posted_here_before_an_audio/ce34clq
I applaud that you are taking these issues seriously and studying them out thoroughly.
1 – Sorry, you’re right there, but as I mentioned previously since I believe this was a spiritual hypothetical it *is* unpardonable if you reach that state, and leads you to my argument that these are emphatically pronounced – much like maming one’s self
2a – Where have I justified actual “blood atonement” in any of what I’ve written? Drawing similarities in methods of teaching isn’t justification. In one of the previous responses it’s claimed that I’m argue that the “blood atonement” is metaphorical and another that I’m defending the physical act. Which is it?
2b – I haven’t referenced any OT material, I have tried to keep my arguments strictly NT material
3a – These are examples of death or self maming in relation to grievous sin. It’s pretty clear how this is similar to what you’ve described. While they are not shown for justification, but as demonstration of past emphatic statements made in teaching in NT times. While I concede that the husband and wife dying for sin wasn’t an emphatic statement — it was a reality, they died immediately for sin and a reference by BY that someone would die for grievous sin wasn’t out of line as referenced by raping. Had anyone died in BY’s time for raping slaves – I don’t know, but I’m sure that the person would be dead to the community.
3b – As mentioned, sinning against the Holy Ghost *is* unpardonable and bars one from the benefits of Christ’s atonement in modern LDS theology.
4a – I don’t think George Smith was teaching any whit of theology during the trial – he was explaining the reasoning and “genius”(as he called it) behind culture and laws of the Territory.
4b – If you read the full argument of George Smith he mentions specific cases to the Judge – which aren’t refuted at least initially.
4c – My point wasn’t that it was ok – rather that it was not unheard of and so not indicative of “blood atonement”.
4d – I’d actually side with Judge Z Snow on this matter as is referenced by the discourse that follows George Smith’s – he states that what really matters is whether the act was committed in the territory where the law was in place or within the Jurisdiction of the United States. Having been committed stateside would have made Egan guilty, and vice versa. Further he shows the folly of such a practice as such an irreversible act of killing shouldn’t be carried out without solid evidence invites abuses not easily corrected
5a- You’re right we’re not talking just about BY – I refer to all prophets who are not perfect and called despite their frailties. Did that lessen the office he held or the right he claimed to prophecy? No less than other prophets who made similar errors of judgment. I’m not going to repeat myself with reference to BY’s miscomings and racial prejudice. As a prophet it was his right to receive revelation for those under his stewardship. Did he receive a constant corrective revelation? Has God ever acted in this way or has he seen fit for the prophet to be swallowed by fish and being reproved by the animals they sit on before correcting them? It seems God gives revelations to those who would he seek His counsel and would have heeded to it. As far as I know BY never claimed to having received direct revelation from God regarding other races or the slavery that was permitted in previous times (even to his own people). It seems he acted according to what he had read and how he interpretted the scripture and history, but as Amos said if God had a revelation he would have made it known to him as soon as he and the people would receive it. Again, sorry if you’ve mentioned this already, everything you’ve cited so far doesn’t point to that.
6a – I’ve nothing to add here, as it doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said or cited. Having lived in the middle of a different culture I don’t discount the influence culture or the culture adhered to at the time can have on a person’s actions/preconceptions/deeply held beliefs and I don’t think anyone is immune to its effects or further anyone free from its bad effects. I believe BY was the called prophet of that era and at least in Batman logic he may not have been the leader some currently would like to look back on but he was the prophet they needed.
6a (there were two 6’s) – I’m not dwelling, I just keep on correcting interracial marriage references being referred to where there are none. If there were some interracial marriage references that connected it to this instantaneous death mentioned then I wouldn’t correct those.
6b – I didn’t know FAIR touched on this issue as I don’t generally read or respond to this type of topic. In this case I was invited to review this document. Either way, I’ve not referenced FAIR, just my own observations.
7a – It’s not an argument to exonerate or justify anyone. Its more of a point of how improbable it would have been for this hypothetical BY to have ordered a killing against someone or someone to kill himself on the basis of “”blood atonement”” since anything but willing sacrifice would “raise as an incense”, and yes willingness has everything to do with sacrifice.
8a – I don’t think they would now either, but did they then? Let’s review at least the *partial* quote referenced “They are old hardened sinners, and are almost – if not altogether- past improvement, and are full of hell, and my prayer is that God’s indignation may rest upon them, and that He will curse them from the crown of their heads to the soles of their feet. I say that there are men and women that I *would* advise to go to the President immediately and ask him to appoint a commitee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected; and let that commitee shed their blood” – This doesn’t seem like he did have someone ask for this commitee but more emphasis/hyperbole.
additional note – reddit while a the homepage to the internet is not a door I would use in this instance
Thanks for the detailed review.
If I was to actually show you a record of when someone had been killed on the theological basis of Blood Atonement, I do not think it would affect you one bit. You would simply say that it was the mistake of one man.
You seem to accept that it was taught at face value but was just incendiary rhetoric aimed at scaring people into righteousness. I disagree with that assertion, but still wonder how you could be okay with even that.
By that standard, if you were trapped in any other false religion you would never find your way out because you would give those false leaders the same benefit of the doubt.
The fact that you wouldn’t even follow a link to reddit demonstrates that you are not willing to actually pursue truth. If the reddit link contains falsehoods – then discover them and point it out. If you are not willing to discover falsehoods, then you cannot know the truth.
Please read the “one wierd trick” article to see what i mean:
http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/fix-your-faith-crisis-with-this-one-weird-trick/
I don’t hold reddit – a place known for it’s moderator problems of bias – to be a great place to derive information of this importance. Now if you gave me a link to some primary sourced document then it would be more weighty. I’d hope that any serious inquiry held would involve primary source documents and not reddit. That’s why I like your discussion above because it doesn’t have links to reddit or digg but real documents. I follow those with full force. It’s not my desire to point out falsehoods – especially on reddit.
While I think its fine to categorize me and compartmentalize what I represent I don’t know how it adds to your defense. Either way I thank you for the rapid response.
-Marc
The reddit link includes a link to an audio recording of the pre-1990 temple ceremony as well as a transcript of it. You know as well as I that there is not going to be a primary source document of this anywhere on the internet. When you listen to the recording you will know it is authentic because it is the same voice that you have heard hundreds of times in the temple.
The ceremony is significantly different and is not the same one which you ever swore secrecy to or the same one which is currently being used to swear secrecy to in temples around the world, so you should have no problem listening to it.
You won’t explode from reading it and you aren’t breaking any covenants by reading it.
Exploding now! – Heh, no thank you. I didn’t expect to listen to a bootlegged copy of a temple ceremony. I’d rather understand the reason for the change rather than that there was a change. I’ve already heard numerous accounts of older members that have described the previous temple ceremony as more lengthy than the current one. Just as were normal church hours observed.
My desire for the reference only stemmed in understanding where you got your information as you didn’t mention a citation for that. Thanks for the invitation though.
It was not changed simply to shorten the length of the service. They removed penalties which are allusions to the principles of blood atonement. They removed a protestant minister who insulted all the other religions and preachers. They altered the way that women were addressed and how they covenanted. They changed the very nature of the communication with God through the veil!
But you won’t know that unless you actually read the transcript!
You are being kept ignorant by fear.
Ignorant of what? Of all you just mentioned. I don’t feel I’m missing out if that’s all. My previous statement still stands. What was the reasoning? And the curiosity isn’t even that deep since I don’t consider the elders of the church as nefarious as others may.
At the end of this article you invited me to come to my own conclusions. I’ve participated and shared my views and the reasoning behind my views. They do not reflect your reasoning. I can accept that we are different. I don’t count you as lesser or as ignorant for your views. I don’t mean to detract from your article either, and it’s evident that the majority who visit here support your interpretation. So I hope that you will allow me my point of view.
Well, If the fact is that the temple ceremony was changed for reasons other than shortening the time, then your last statement attributing the change to that fact would reveal ignorance on that point. I don’t use the term ignorance as an insult – just as a statement of not having possession of data.
I appreciate that you were willing to read the above article and provide your feedback. My interrogating responses have been mainly the result of my difficulty in comprehending the leaps of logic that you are taking that I would not personally be able to make. I acknowledge that you have a different position.
My original question was how you are able to reconcile the fact that this was previously taught in the church by sitting prophets. As I understand you, this is how you reconcile it:
1. These statements about blood atonement are really referring to a metaphorical shedding of blood – not to literal killing of people
2. These prophets were speaking from a position of lesser light and knowledge. They may be excused for not having the full picture, which was brought about by later prophets. Their statements do not somehow prove that they did not have special communication with God which allowed them to act as his mouthpiece.
3. These statements were just fiery rhetoric, meant to ignite peoples minds with the seriousness of sin and the need to obey God’s law. No actual blood atoning was ever meant to take place, other than capital punishment carried out by the legal system.
4. The concept of people paying for sin personally by physical means has precedent in the scriptures, and so thee is nothing out of step with the Gospel in the leaders teaching as they did.
Is this an accurate summary of your position? did I leave anything out or misstate something?
Are there any cases in early Utah of capital punishment actually being imposed for adultery?