A Question About Blood Atonement

[inquiringmind]

I think FAIR got this from Gustave O. Larson, "The Mormon Reformation," Utah Historical Quarterly 26/1 (January 1958): 60-62 (but they don't cite his source.)

Omitted from quotations used by the anti-Mormons were restraining clauses such as follow from Brigham Young:

. . . The time has been in Israel under the law of God 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.

http://en.fairmormon...Blood_atonement

I assume the original quote comes from the Journal of discourses, but I'd like to know if it was said before or during the Mormon Reformation?

Did Brigham ever actually say that the time he spoke of here had come, and that the blood of Christ couldn't cover the sins of endowed saints who had broken their covenants unless they paid for those sins by the shedding of their own blood (without some kind of restraining clause like this)?

My understanding is that that's not the teaching of the Church today.

I'd like to know if it ever really was, if Brigham Young (as President and Prophet of the Church ever really taught it, and (if he did, and if it was wrong) how God could have allowed him to teach such error without prompting him to see the truth?

Edited April 9, 2013 by inquiringmind

[thesometimesaint]

I think FAIR got this from Gustave O. Larson, "The Mormon Reformation," Utah Historical Quarterly 26/1 (January 1958): 60-62 (but they don't cite his source.)

http://en.fairmormon...Blood_atonement

I assume the original quote comes from the Journal of discourses, but I'd like to know if it was said before or during the Mormon Reformation?

Did Brigham ever actually say that the time he spoke of here had come, and that the blood of Christ couldn't cover the sins of endowed saints who had broken their covenants, unless they paid for those sins by the shedding of their own blood?

My understanding is that that's not the teaching of the Church today.

I'd like to know if it ever really was, if Brigham Young (as President and Prophet of the Church ever really taught it, and (if he did, and if it was wrong) how God could have allowed him to teach such error without prompting him to see the truth?

LDS doctrine is that there was only one Blood Atonement that was necessary, and that that one happened 2000 years ago outside a certain middle eastern city's wall.

God doesn't make sock puppets, and allows every man including LDS Prophets their own opinions.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[inquiringmind]

LDS doctrine is that there was only one Blood Atonement that was necessary, and that that one happened 2000 years ago outside a certain middle eastern city's wall.

That's what I thought the modern teaching of the Church was.

But I'm not sure that's not an oversimplification.

When every state had the death penalty, any sectarian priest or minister would counsel a penitant who confessed to being guilty of a capital crime to bring forth fruits of repentance by turning themselves in to the authorities.

In practicality, that would mean that to benefit from the atonement, or receive absolution, they'd have to face execution.

So I'm not entirely sure what Brigham taught, whether it was wrong, or how different it was to what the Church teaches today.

These are some of the things I'm interested in, which is why I think you misunderstood the OP.

I'd like to know whether the Church now teaches what you say it does, and whether it's always taught that.

More specifically: I'd like to know if BY ever really taught the doctrine that certain sins couldn't be covered by Christ's blood alone (or whether it's possible the anti's have made it appear that way by taking some of his comments out of context, and leaving out important restraining clauses, like the FAIR article seems to imply.)

God doesn't make sock puppets, and allows every man including LDS Prophets their own opinions.

Are you saying that if Brigham Young (while the President and living Prophet of the Church) was teaching false doctrine, God couldn't have corrected him, or are you saying that Brigham was so attached to his own opinions that he wouldn't have listened?

Or are you saying that God couldn't have spoken to him in some way, and told him "Brigham my son, there's only one Blood Atonement that is necessary, and that that one happened a little over 1800 years ago"?

Edited April 9, 2013 by inquiringmind

[ALarson]

LDS doctrine is that there was only one Blood Atonement that was necessary, and that that one happened 2000 years ago outside a certain middle eastern city's wall.

I was always taught (growing up in the church) that we believed Christ's atonement did not apply to murder and that the person who committed the murder needed to atone by shedding his own blood. Has this changed (I'm asking in all honesty)?

Does the church now teach that a person who has committed murder can be forgiven in this lifetime? If so, how do they explain D & C 42:18?

18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

Edited April 9, 2013 by ALarson

[inquiringmind]

I was always taught (growing up in the church) that we believed Christ's atonement did not apply to murder and that the person who committed the murder needed to atone by shedding his own blood. Has this changed (I'm asking in all honesty)?

Does the church now teach that a person who has committed murder can be forgiven in this lifetime? If so, how do they explain D & C 42:18?

Interesting.

But BY is often quoted as teaching more than that.

Anti's quote him as saying that endowed saints who are guilty of breaking their covenants, and committing such sins as theft and adultery, have to pay with their lives before they could be forgiven.

Is it possible those quotes are taken out of context?

If not, could he have been right?

And if the quotes aren't taken out of context, and the teaching is clearly out of harmony with what the Church teaches today, why would God have allowed him to have been so wrong?

Edited April 9, 2013 by inquiringmind

[KevinG]

Yes and almost always.

Yes or No.

Agency.

[rameumptom]

In recent Conference talks, Elder Holland and others have stated that the atonement can heal all wounds and forgive all sins. I think there are some traditional concepts and readings of particular verses, where things have been read into them. I see DC 42:8 as dealing with sons of Perdition, because it does not discuss repentance, etc. King David was forgiven of his sins, even if he does lose his exaltation, the atonement still rescues him from death and hell into a kingdom of salvation and glory. It must apply for all others, as well.

The key is not to take one verse out of all the scriptures and then attempt to build a whole gospel concept around it. You have to nuance each scripture in light of all the other scriptures that discuss the same concept.

[Stone holm]

I was always taught (growing up in the church) that we believed Christ's atonement did not apply to murder and that the person who committed the murder needed to atone by shedding his own blood. Has this changed (I'm asking in all honesty)?

Does the church now teach that a person who has committed murder can be forgiven in this lifetime? If so, how do they explain D & C 42:18?

I didn't grow up i the Church, but I was baptised back when the dinosaurs still roamed the earth, and back then the notion of blood atonement for murder was still very much alive and kicking to the extent that we were being admonished that if we undertook to prevent the execution by getting capitol punishment repealed or by exercising prosecutorial discretion in not seeking the death penalty that some of the taint or perhaps the whole penalty could fall on us. As to murder, as late as President Kimball they were still teaching that murderers could not achieve the Celestial Kingdom, but they might be able to improve their standing in the lesser Kingdoms. It is my understanding -- from comments made by others not in authority that the Church has moved away from the idea of blood atonement. But I still vividly remember one murderer right after the moratorium was lifted, requesting execution by firing squad in Utah, and another's LDS father begging him to confess if he did the murder and ask for execution in order that he could pay the price. People don't do that kind of thing if the idea isn't alive and kicking.

[KevinG]

One time at a Stake Conference I attended one of the visiting 70s was testing the microphone when we were setting up chairs. He said "testing. tongihts sermon will be on Blood Atonement" then sat down with a mischeivious grin on his face. The two or three of us in the hall who heard and comprehended were cracking up.

[KevinG]

I don't find the concept of making restitution as far as we are able to be terribly radical. It might ruffle the sensibilities of some in this day and age of being separated from the gritty realities of life and death, but how is requiring a murderer to lay down their life in restitution any less legitimate than asking someone who defaced a wall to repaint it as part of their repentance process.

I won't go as far as to try to interpret Brother Brigham's out of context statements 150 years after the fact but I don't know why the notion that restitution in as much as we are able as part of the repentance process wouldn't apply to murder.

Remember everything sinful we do will keep us out of heaven if we don't repent. That is the larger context for everything related to restitution the atonement.

[Questing Beast]

In 1905, Joseph F. Smith Jr and Richard C. Evans (2nd counselor in the RLDS Church), exchanged letters over the subject of polygamy and blood atonement. Evans accused B. Young of teaching that death (preferably throat cutting from ear to ear) would be the fate of anyone who left the Church. Smith's reply included the following: "Did you know that not a single individual was ever 'blood atoned,' as you are pleased to call it, for apostasy or any other cause? Were you not aware, in repeating this false charge, that it was made by the most bitter enemies of the Church before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith?"

In the exchange, Evans repeated the slanderous assertions of anti-Mormons of the day, how "Utah was for years a land of assassination and a field of blood", i.e. B. Young revenging himself on apostates and enemies of the Church, etc. Smith countered with the facts and his sources are unimpeachable. In Utah territory there was not one proven case of "blood atonement" for any cause whatsoever, as Smith declared. The "doctrine" did not exist. The only "blood atonement" taught by the Church was that in the scriptures, of Jesus Christ for the repentance and forgiveness of sins. Capital punishment was legislated, and death by firing squad was upheld as the preferred method over hanging, because that way the murderer shed his own blood to help pay for his crimes. This was biblical in origin and in no way was connected to some religious oath taking whereby adulterers and murderers (much less apostates) agreed to "have their blood spilled on the ground" to atone for their sins....

Edited April 9, 2013 by Questing Beast

[inquiringmind]

Yes and almost always.

Yes or No.

Agency.

If "Yes and almost always" is intended as an answer to the question "Is it possible those quotes are taken out of context?," and if you have access to the journal of discourses, could you give some examples?

Could you show how he wasn't really saying that latter day saints guilty of adultery could only find mercy by paying for their sin with their own lives?

If "Yes or No" is intended as an answer to the question "If not, could he have been right?," what is it supposed to mean?

And if "Agency" is intended as an answer to the question "if the quotes aren't taken out of context, and the teaching is clearly out of harmony with what the Church teaches today, why would God have allowed him to have been so wrong?," are you suggesting that Brigham Young wasn't open to the promptings of The Spirit?

[KevinG]

...yeah but it made for some roliciking sub plots in dime western novels.

[rongo]

Jesus Himself taught that there were some sins that couldn't be forgiven, so this isn't just a Mormon problem. Non-Mormon Christian critics of Mormonism can't talk away what Jesus Himself said about unforgiveable sin.

inquiringmind, you might find a paper I wrote (and which was the basis for my 2011 FAIR Conference presentation) to be helpful. Most apologists and even well-read Church members are unaware of the complete scope of what Brigham Young & Co. actually said about blood atonement and related issues. The few cherry-picked proof-texts look much different in light of everything else that was taught and said (which, again, is still widely unknown, due to lack of firsthand familiarity with Journal of Discourses).

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/dead-men-tell-no-tales

[KevinG]

Inquiring- it means that no one can read a dead man's mind- not even the most dedicated critics of the LDS Church and Brigham Young. My recommendation is you read Brigham's comments for yourself: http://journalofdiscourses.com/

...and keep in mind they are not inerrant or doctrine - and that our own understanding of them is prejudiced by our contemporary lenses and sensibilities.

[inquiringmind]

Inquiring- it means that no one can read a dead man's mind- not even the most dedicated critics of the LDS Church and Brigham Young. My recommendation is you read Brigham's comments for yourself: http://journalofdiscourses.com/

...and keep in mind they are not inerrant or doctrine - and that our own understanding of them is prejudiced by our contemporary lenses and sensibilities.

I thank you for the link, but the Journal entries don't seem to be arranged according to date or page number.

I'm interested in the following quote (which appears on several anti web sites.)

“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be 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 the 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.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109

I can see something has been left out (between the sentence that ends with "clean hands," and the sentence that begins with "there is not a man or woman"), and I'd like to know what it is (and I tried looking it up using the link you gave, but couldn't find anything like this quote.)

Can you help me here?

Is this quote entirely spurious?

Has it been taken out of context?

Has some restraining clause been left out?

If the quote is genuine, if it hasn't been taken out of context, and if no important restraining clause or qualifier has been left out, it would seem that BY is saying that Christ's blood alone isn't enough to cover the sin of an endowed saint who has committed adultery (even if he's repentant.)

If that is what he said, could he have been right (or is that entirely incompatible with current, official, Church doctrine)?

And if he was clearly wrong (given current, official Church doctrine), why would God have allowed him to stray so far from the mark?

Edited April 9, 2013 by inquiringmind

[rongo]

I thank you for the link, but the Journal entries don't seem to be arranged according to date or page number.

I'm interested in the [javelin] quote (which appears on several anti web sites.)

inquiringmind, I would be interested in your thoughts after reading my paper (there are 109 footnotes). Here's a teaser that tangentially mentions the "javelin" quote:

"In response to allegations that Brigham Young had ordered murders in Utah Territory, including the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the murder of Dr. Robinson, Brigham answered with characteristic humor and cutting insight. Important here is Young’s acknowledgment that he has said he would do things in certain instances (such as impale adulterers with a javelin) that could not reasonably be taken literally:

"There is a gentleman here this afternoon who has said that he knows all about it. If he does, why does he not tell of it; and privately he places the murder upon President Brigham Young? Why do you not testify to what you know before the Courts? If President Young is guilty of any such crime, trace it to him. There are some things that Brigham has said he would do; but has never happened to do them; and that is not all, he prays fervently, to his Father and God that he may never be brought into circumstances to be obliged to shed human blood. He never has yet been brought into such a position. Still, let me find a dog in my bedroom, I would not say that he would be very safe; I hope he will never get there. If I should find a dog in my buttery, or in my bedroom as some have, I fear they would give their last howl. I hope and pray they never will come there. If they jump my claims here, I shall be very apt to give them a pre-emption right that will last them to the last resurrection. I hope no man will ever venture so far as to tempt me to do such a thing."

Yet, even at this moment, Brigham Young presciently sensed that critics would cherry pick what they could out of his remarks to portray him as having enjoined blood atonement:

"I do not care about the outsiders hearing this, as their opinion is neither here nor there to me; the Saints, however, are welcome to my views upon this matter. If the outsiders think that I am guilty of the crime, let them trace it to me and prove it on me. If any man, woman or child that ever lived has said that Brigham Young ever counseled them to commit crime of any description, they are liars in the face of heaven. If I am guilty of any such thing, let it be proved on me, and not go sneaking around insinuating that Brigham knows all about it."

You really need to read especially my section on the use of the subjunctive verb case in blood atonement statements. All of them are in the subjunctive case, and that is significant.

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/dead-men-tell-no-tales#head03

[inquiringmind]

inquiringmind, I would be interested in your thoughts after reading my paper (there are 109 footnotes). Here's a teaser that tangentially mentions the "javelin" quote:

You really need to read especially my section on the use of the subjunctive verb case in blood atonement statements. All of them are in the subjunctive case, and that is significant.

http://www.fairlds.o...no-tales#head03

Thank you.

Edited April 9, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Stone holm]

I thank you for the link, but the Journal entries don't seem to be arranged according to date or page number.

I'm interested in the following quote (which appears on several anti web sites.)

“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be 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 the 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.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109

I can see something has been left out (between the sentence that ends with "clean hands," and the sentence that begins with "there is not a man or woman"), and I'd like to know what it is (and I tried looking it up using the link you gave, but couldn't find anything like this quote.)

Can you help me here?

Is this quote entirely spurious?

Has it been taken out of context?

Has some restraining clause been left out?

If the quote is genuine, if it hasn't been taken out of context, and if no important restraining clause or qualifier has been left out, it would seem that BY is saying that Christ's blood alone isn't enough to cover the sin of an endowed saint who has committed adultery (even if he's repentant.)

If that is what he said, could he have been right (or is that entirely incompatible with current, official, Church doctrine)?

And if he was clearly wrong (given current, official Church doctrine), why would God have allowed him to stray so far from the mark?

Brigham Young was reciting basically an old common law doctrine which provided a defense to premeditated murder as a crime of passion. I think it is innappropriate to put much emphasis on the need for the killing as opposed to the innocence of the killer. Obviously, "murder" in the sense that has eternal consequences is not just any killing. Although, one has to wonder just exactly how we deal with Nephi and Laban. I have never read the idea of blood atonement for apostasy, I have always heard of it in relation to murder. It is a special requirement of repentance for murder. You also have to realize that the Journal of Discourses, which I have a complete set of, is filled with all kinds of off the cuff casual sermons given by the Brethren. One that I especially liked was Brigham Young's response to a person who had written to him expressing remorse over having been involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre after the Federal Government had granted unsolicited amnesty to those involved -- Brigham said the remedy for the person was, "a rope around the neck taken with a quick jerk." Got to hand it to Brigham, he was colorful. As far as apostates are concerned many brethren who fell away were later welcomed back into the Church after repenting.

[inquiringmind]

delete

Edited April 9, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

delete

Edited April 9, 2013 by inquiringmind

[KevinG]

What do you think he meant Inquiring?

Here is the whole discourse (easily referenced by putting the word javelin in the search bar at the top of the home page).

http://journalofdiscourses.com/3/35

I will now speak upon another subject; one which I have touched upon many times, but which, to this day, is but little understood. I allude to the organization of the spirit and the body, the distinction between the two, and their operations. This subject is not well understood, and generally not much reflected upon, but is one which the Saints have got to learn, if they ever learn the real organization of man. Then they will know and understand the peculiarities of our present organization, and how liable mankind are to submit to its weaknesses, and to the influences of the powers that rule over them.

Were you in possession of this knowledge, you would be more compassionate. As severely as I sometimes talk to you, my soul is full of compassion. It has ever been my study to understand myself, for by so doing I can understand my neighbors.

If this people would apply their minds to wisdom, with regard to themselves, they would be more compassionate than they are now.

From what is at times said here, it might be inferred that everyone who did not walk to the line was at once going to be destroyed, but who has been hurt? Who is about to be killed? Who is about to be taken out of the way? When this people have lived long enough upon the earth, to have the principles of life and salvation disseminated among them, and to have their children taught in those principles, so that they fully know the principles of eternal salvation, then let us or our children turn away from the commandments of God, as some do now, and I could tell you what will be done with them.

Brother Wesley has said, the time is not far distant, but it will never come until the inhabitants of the earth, and especially those who have been gathered together, have a sufficient time to be educated in the celestial law, so that each person may understand for himself. Then if they transgress against the light and knowledge they possess, some will be stoned to death, and "judgment will be laid to the line, and righteousness to the plummet." But people will never be taken and sacrificed for their ignorance, when they have had no opportunity to know and understand the truth. Such a proceeding would be contrary to the economy of heaven. But after we receive and understand things as they are, if we then disobey, we may look for the chastening hand of the Almighty.

If we could learn ourselves, we should see thousands and thousands of weaknesses in the people. They turn to the right and to the left, to this and that which is wrong; yet if we did know and see things as they are, we should understand that thousands of those acts are performed in ignorance.

I presume there are people hearing me talk, who would give the riches of the Indies, if they had them in their possession, to be able to obtain the mind and will of God concerning themselves. They would give all they possess on the earth, or expect to possess, were they in possession of keys by which they could know the path to walk in. What are we going to do with this class of persons? I will tell you what I am going to do with them, so far as I am concerned. I am going to give them my faith, confidence, prayers, and full fellowship. And when they get through with this probation, if they have done, all the time, according to the best they knew, God will not hold them responsible for what they did not know, and they will be received, through the merits of the Son, into the kingdom of our Father.

I mention this to inform the people, that they may understand what they should do with regard to the law of God, and the transgression thereof. The law is very strict; and in this congregation there are men and women who, with uplifted hands to heaven, before the Father, the Son, and all the holy angels, made solemn covenants that they never would do thus and so. For example, one obligation is, "I will never have anything to do with any of the daughters of Eve, unless they are given to me of the Lord." Men will call God to witness that they never will transgress this law, and promise to live a virtuous life, so far as intercourse with females is concerned; but what can you see? A year will not pass away before some few of them are guilty of creeping into widows' houses, and into bed with the wives of their brethren, debauching one woman here, and another there. Do we enforce upon them the strict penalty of the law? Not yet. I hope their conduct arises from their ignorance, but let me transgress my covenant, and the case would be different. I want to live as long as I can, on the earth, but I would not like to live to violate my covenants; I would rather go behind the veil before doing so.

A few of the men and women who go into the house of the Lord, and receive their endowments, and in the most sacred manner make covenants before the Almighty, go and violate those covenants. Do I have compassion on them? Yes, I do have mercy on them, for there is something in their organization which they do not understand; and there are but few in this congregation who do understand it.

You say, "That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God." Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be 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. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged.

Every man and woman has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone.

Again, suppose the parties are not caught in their iniquity, and it passes along unnoticed, shall I have compassion on them? Yes, I will have compassion on them, for transgressions of the nature already named, or for those of any other description. If the Lord so orders it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live; and I say let them live and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do.

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; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants. To what degree? Will they have to go to hell? They are in hell enough now. I do not wish them in a greater hell, when their consciences condemn them all the time. Let compassion reign in our bosoms. Try to comprehend how weak we are, how we are organized, how the spirit and the flesh are continually at war.

In short he is saying that we could justify ourselves in thinking we could execute judgement according to the scriptural laws and penalties but we do not instantly judge or carry out judgements because we are all guilty of sin and we all need time to repent and partake of the atonement. The exact opposite of what critics claim he is saying.

Edited April 9, 2013 by KevinG

[inquiringmind]

What do you think he meant Inquiring?

Here is the whole discourse (easily referenced by putting the word javelin in the search bar at the top of the home page).

http://journalofdiscourses.com/3/35

In short he is saying that we could justify ourselves in thinking we could execute judgement according to the scriptural laws and penalties but we do not instantly judge or carry out judgements because we are all guilty of sin and we all need time to repent and partake of the atonement. The exact opposite of what critics claim he is saying.

Thank you for putting Brother Brigham's remarks in context.

(It looks like the javelin quote really has been taken out of context, and a lot of qualifiers and restraining clauses have been left out by the antis.)

Edited April 9, 2013 by inquiringmind

[KevinG]

Thank you for putting Brother Brigham's remarks in context.

(It looks like the javelin quote really has been taken out of context, and a lot of qualifiers and restraining clauses have been left out by the antis.)

I would agree with your assessment. Sorry if I appeared glib earlier- my experience tells me that if a critical source is eager to share the context is usually stripped.

Not to say everything Brigham taught was inerrant. He was a great leader in the 1800s but boy would his opinions get him in trouble today!! Then again I'm not sure President Monson could have gotten all the Saints to the West in handcarts either.

[Tacenda]

I was all ready to feel indignant at the anti's for taking that quote out of context until I read the whole paper. I didn't like it. So Brigham Young was saying he had clean hands and was okay in slaying the adulterers? He's still saying to commit murder with clean hands and especially if you catch them in the act! This is terrible to say these things. He's definitely speaking blood atonement. Saying it's better for the sinner to die or atone for their own sin.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Tacenda