Blood Atonement

[TruthSeeker24]

Blood Atonement. What is it? What do you think about it? Did it ever happen? Is it doctrine? What do you think?

[bluebell]

I believe it's the belief that some sins are so heinous that repentance has to involve giving up your own life.

As to what i think about it....i don't know. I can see how it could be true, in specific cases involving murder and the death penalty. I don't know that anyone on earth could possibly be able to judge when it would be necessary, if it is a true doctrine though. Logically, it makes some sense but it seems so extreme that it would be practically impossible to justly deal it out and therefore, rather worthless.

[thesometimesaint]

Every Christian believes in Blood Atonement. But there was only one necessary and that one happened 2000 years ago on a hill just outside of Jerusalem Israel

Edited May 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[TruthSeeker24]

Every Christian believes in Blood Atonement. But there was only one necessary and that one happened 2000 years ago on a hill just outside of Jerusalem Israel

Naturally, I'm only speaking in regards to Blood Atonement in Mormon history.

[TruthSeeker24]

Here's quotes of Brigham Young on it.

"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 sheding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant."

"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, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have 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."

"This is loving our neighbour 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."

All three of these quotes are taken from JofD V4 pgs 215-221

[Log]

Blood Atonement. What is it?

It is essentially Brigham Young preaching hellfire and damnation to scare the people into honoring their covenants. See here, particularly towards the end of the article.

[thesometimesaint]

Truthseeker24:

Christ is part of our history also. I think you mean post 1830 LDS thought. Some believe that it is the function of the state to shed blood when innocent blood is shed, others do not. From the theological standpoint I do not, and from the secular standpoint I'm a bit torn.

[treehugger]

Blood Atonement. What is it? What do you think about it? Did it ever happen? Is it doctrine? What do you think?

I recall that there was a published statement on this from the Church a few years ago. My recollection is the Church stated it "Blood Atonement" was never Doctrine.

[TruthSeeker24]

Isn't there a quote from Joseph Smith stating something along the lines of him believing men should have their heads chopped off for the death penalty, so that their blood could cry out to the heavens asking forgiveness?

[CV75]

Here's quotes of Brigham Young on it.

***

All three of these quotes are taken from JofD V4 pgs 215-221

To me, this looks like theological justification for capital punishment. The word “if” is used a lot, and the overall tone expresses that they key to the spiritual effectiveness of the death penalty is the attitude of the executed (and of the executioners as well, for their sakes), and relates to Matthew 16:25.

"…if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty …if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them."

"…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. …That is the way to love mankind."

[Carborendum]

Isn't there a quote from Joseph Smith stating something along the lines of him believing men should have their heads chopped off for the death penalty, so that their blood could cry out to the heavens asking forgiveness?

If you know of one, I'd like to see it.

[cinepro]

I recall that there was a published statement on this from the Church a few years ago. My recollection is the Church stated it "Blood Atonement" was never Doctrine.

Mormon Church Statement on Blood Atonement

June 17, 2010

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

Edited May 1, 2012 by cinepro

[David T]

Hence, the acknowledgement that it was taught by Church leaders, but that it is not now a doctrine of the Church.

Edited May 1, 2012 by David T

[Senator]

Hence, the acknowledgement that it was taught by Church leaders, but that it is not now a doctrine of the Church.

Yeah, that statement certainly isn't a confidence builder. But it certainly is an apologetic necessity.

[Cobalt-70]

Isn't there a quote from Joseph Smith stating something along the lines of him believing men should have their heads chopped off for the death penalty, so that their blood could cry out to the heavens asking forgiveness?

Joseph Smith never taught the blood atonement doctrine. He taught something that I call the "blood for blood" doctrine, which is a bit different. He believed that crimes of bloodshed should be punished by the spilling of blood, because it was the "law of the Lord." Smith was therefore opposed to hanging. This was a retributive doctrine, however. It is not blood atonement because there is no evidence that Joseph Smith believed that the execution was a human sacrifice that would atone for the criminal's sins.

[Cobalt-70]

Hence, the acknowledgement that it was taught by Church leaders, but that it is not now a doctrine of the Church.

The recent statement is also a backing away from a 1978 statement by Bruce McConkie, acting under the direction of the First Presidency. McConkie basically acknowledged the blood atonement doctrine as Mormon theology, but said it was not operative except under a Mormon theocracy. He upheld the fundamentals behind that doctrine, which are: (1) that some sins are not reachable by the atonement of Jesus, and (2) that it is possible for a human sacrifice other than Jesus to atone for sins.

Apparently, this prior FP-authorized statement is now completely abandoned. the 2010 statement makes it clear for the first time that the atonement of Jesus was all-encompassing. However, the 2010 statement lacks a bit of candor to the extent it implies that the doctrine was merely "emotional rhetoric" of the 19th century. The doctrine was taken seriously by the LDS Church for over a century, and even made its way into the laws of the state of Utah, which prohibited hanging, but allowed execution by firing squad and beheading.

[Mark Beesley]

The recent statement is also a backing away from a 1978 statement by Bruce McConkie, acting under the direction of the First Presidency. McConkie basically acknowledged the blood atonement doctrine as Mormon theology, but said it was not operative except under a Mormon theocracy. He upheld the fundamentals behind that doctrine, which are: (1) that some sins are not reachable by the atonement of Jesus, and (2) that it is possible for a human sacrifice other than Jesus to atone for sins.

I am assuming you can provide a reference for this?

Edited to add a reference. http://www.shields-research.org/General/blood_atonement.htm

The 2010 statement by the Church is entirely consistent with Elder McConkie's 1978 letter to a private individual.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Lachoneus]

The 2010 statement by the Church is entirely consistent with Elder McConkie's 1978 letter to a private individual.

It also helps to read quotes in context. As Elder McConkie notes in his letter, President Young was speaking of Ancient Israel and of a time when these matters should be restored again in some future day. He was not speaking of our day, nor of any current practice. The quotes in post #5 are shown in bold.

Brother Cummings told you the truth this morning with regard to the sins of the people. And I will say that the time will come, and is now nigh at hand, when those who profess our faith, if they are guilty of what some of this people are guilty of, will find the axe laid at the root of the tree, and they will be hewn down. What has been must be again, for the Lord is coming to restore all things. The time has been in Israel under the law of God, the celestial law, or that which pertains to the celestial law, for it is one of the laws of that kingdom where our Father dwells, that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life.

You are aware that when brother Cummings came to the point of loving our neighbours as ourselves, he could say yes or no as the case might be, that is true. But I want to connect it with the doctrine you read in the Bible. When will we love our neighbour as ourselves? In the first place, Jesus said that no man hateth his own flesh. It is admitted by all that every person loves himself. Now if we do rightly love ourselves, we want to be saved and continue to exist, we want to go into the kingdom where we can enjoy eternity and see no more sorrow nor death. This is the desire of every person who believes in God. Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees 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? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing; his language is left as it is for those to read who have the Spirit to discern between truth and error; it was so left for those who can discern the things of God. Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness.

Now take the wicked, and I can refer to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt, except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hands of their enemies, by the plague, and by the sword, why? Because He loved them, and promised Abraham that He would save them. And He loved Abraham because he was a friend to his God, and would stick to Him in the hour of darkness, hence He promised Abraham that He would save his seed. And He could save them upon no other principle, for they had forfeited their right to the land of Canaan by transgressing the law of God, and they could not have atoned for the sin if they had lived. But if they were slain, the Lord could bring them up in the resurrection, and give them the land of Canaan, and He could not do it on any other principle.

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, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up-conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have 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 forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

This is loving our neighbour 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.

Christ and Belial have not become friends; they have never shaken hands; they never have agreed to be brothers and to be on good terms; no, never; and they never will, because they are diametrically opposed to each other. If one conquers, the other is destroyed. One or the other of them must triumph and utterly destroy and cast down his opponent. Light and darkness cannot dwell together, and so it is with the kingdom of God.

Now, brethren and sisters, will you live your religion? How many hundreds of times have I asked you that question? Will the Latter-day Saints live their religion? I am ashamed to say anything about a reformation among Saints, but I am happy to think that the people called Latter-day Saints are striving now to obtain the Spirit of their calling and religion. They are just coming into the path, just waking up out of their sleep. It seems as though they are nearly all like babies; we are but children in one sense. Now let us begin, like children, and walk in the straight and narrow path, live our religion, and honour our God.

With these remarks, I pray the God of Israel to bless you forever and ever, for you are the best people on earth. I can say that I am happy that you are doing so well as you are. Continue to increase in all the graces of God's Spirit until the day of His coming, which I desire with all my heart, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[treehugger]

I am assuming you can provide a reference for this?

Edited to add a reference. http://www.shields-r...d_atonement.htm

The 2010 statement by the Church is entirely consistent with Elder McConkie's 1978 letter to a private individual.

Should we consider the letter an official statement of the Church? I agree that most recent statement is consistent with the 1978 letter

[Cobalt-70]

I am assuming you can provide a reference for this?

Edited to add a reference. http://www.shields-r...d_atonement.htm

The 2010 statement by the Church is entirely consistent with Elder McConkie's 1978 letter to a private individual.

The 2010 statement says that the atonement of Jesus was "infinite and all-encompassing." Bruce McConkie, on the other hand, claimed that "there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person." He also said that, in effect, the blood atonement doctrine was the official doctrine of the church as a theoretical principle, but that it was operative only in a theocracy. He said there was no doctrine of blood atonement "in this dispensation." By contrast, the 2010 statement says that Jesus' atonement applies to all people, apparently including those in a theocracy who have committed grave sins.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Nevo]

If you know of one, I'd like to see it.

The quote attributed to Joseph Smith in the History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 296, reads: "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." It appears under the heading "The Questions of 'Currency' and Blood Atonement, in the Nauvoo City Council."

[K-2]

It seems to me that two separate issues are being discussed here. The first is regarding whether capital punishment is appropriate or required for certain crimes according to God. The second is whether death is required for some members of the Church in order to receive a forgiveness of sins.

What about 1 Cor. 5:4-5?

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.

This is in a religious context and is done so "that the spirit may be saved."

What about D&C 132:26, 41, 64?

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

Here we see that people who are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise through the holy anointing and then break certain covenants are to be destroyed. The phrases "delivered unto the buffetings of Satan" and "I will destroy her" suggest, rather than the offender being physically killed or sacrificed by another mortal, that they would be delivered up to the Lord who would then remove all protection of them from Satan and allow them to be destroyed by him, as in the passage from 1 Cor. 5 above.

[Mark Beesley]

The 2010 statement says that the atonement of Jesus was "infinite and all-encompassing." Bruce McConkie, on the other hand, claimed that "there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person." He also said that, in effect, the blood atonement doctrine was the official doctrine of the church as a theoretical principle, but that it was operative only in a theocracy. He said there was no doctrine of blood atonement "in this dispensation." By contrast, the 2010 statement says that Jesus' atonement applies to all people, apparently including those in a theocracy who have committed grave sins.

The 2010 statement by the Church says,

We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

McConkie wrote:

We believe that the blood of Christ, shed in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary, cleanses all men from sin on condition of repentance. As expressed by a Book of Mormon scripture: "Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. (Mosiah 3:18.)

Everything else McCronkie wrote was theoretical under a law we have not been given. If we are not given a law, we are not subject to it. Thus, under the law which we now live, the Church's 2010 statement is entirely consistent with what McConkie wrote. (Unless of course you think God treats people who lived without a law the same as those who lived with a law. But the Book of Mormon teaches that God does not do that.)

Edited May 3, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[K-2]

Mark, you don't think we were given a law about this in D&C 132?

[Mark Beesley]

Mark, you don't think we were given a law about this in D&C 132?

Read McConkie's letter here.

No, I don't think we have been give a law implementing so-called blood atonement.