Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Blood Atonement Quotes Stating to "Let The Smoke Ascend Up"


Recommended Posts

In reading some sources that I was looking up yesterday, I came across some quotes regarding Blood Atonement being done and then letting the "smoke ascend up".   Does anyone have an interpretation for this or input as to why this this was included in the descriptions?

Here are a few quotes on this:

Quote

 

"I say that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President [Brigham Young] immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committe shed their blood.

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."  -  Remarks by Jedediah M. Grant, Sunday Morning, September 21, 1856, Printed in the Deseret News, October 1, 1856  

 

 

Quote

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannon receive forgiveness in this world, or 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 on the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascent 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."   -  Discourse by Pres. Brigham Young, September 21, 1856, Deseret News, October 1, 1856   

 

Quote

"Mayor [Joseph Smith] said he was opposing to hanging.  If a man kill another shoot him or cut his throat spilling his blood on the ground and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God.  If I ever have the privilege of making a law on this point I will have it so."  - An American Prophet's Record, Page 326, March 4, 1843

I know it can be debated whether or not Blood Atonement was truly practiced or enforced, but my question is regarding the inclusion that after blood was shed, "the smoke ascend".  The smoke seems to represent or be symbolic of one's sins, but does anyone have more information on these quotes?  Were Jedediah Grant and Brigham Young just repeating what Joseph had stated or did they ever write more about this "smoke"?

I'll keep reading on this too, but I thought I'd bring my questions here.  There are more statements by others, but they all say pretty much the same as the quotes above regarding this.

.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment

Great question, I found this quote on the JSP web site when I did a search for "smoke" quoting Joseph in 1842.  

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-1-21-december-1842-10-march-1843?p=277&highlight=smoke#!/paperSummary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-1-21-december-1842-10-march-1843&p=277

Quote

Mayor said he was opposed to hanging  if a man kill anothe[r] shoot him [p. [268]] or cut his throat. spilling his blood on  the ground and let the smoke thereof  ascend up to God. and if I ever have  the privilige of Making a law on this  point I will have it so.—

I'm not sure where the origins of this thinking about sins and being clean from sins comes from, it would be an interesting topic to do some more research on.  I'm guessing some of this comes from their 19th century beliefs about ritual offerings and practices of the ancient Israelites.  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Great question, I found this quote on the JSP web site when I did a search for "smoke" quoting Joseph in 1842.  

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-1-21-december-1842-10-march-1843?p=277&highlight=smoke#!/paperSummary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-1-21-december-1842-10-march-1843&p=277

I'm not sure where the origins of this thinking about sins and being clean from sins comes from, it would be an interesting topic to do some more research on.  I'm guessing some of this comes from their 19th century beliefs about ritual offerings and practices of the ancient Israelites.  

Thanks, and I agree as I'm also wondering if it came from Old Testament times (and their ritual sacrifices).  

Link to comment

Wow!  That first quote by Grant is pretty terrifying to read!  Can you imagine being in the congregation that day?  I'll bet saints were quaking in their boots.  I wonder what brought that on (from the leaders)?

Why doesn't the church still preach blood atonement?  It seems it is still a church doctrine, correct?

Or is blood atonement thought of like the Adam God doctrines from the early days of the church and no longer believed (by most and by current leaders)?

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thanks, and I agree as I'm also wondering if it came from Old Testament times (and their ritual sacrifices).  

I think that's what the ascending smoke is in reference to, yes. In that context, blood atonement is really a form of human sacrifice. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, ALarson said:

In reading some sources that I was looking up yesterday, I came across some quotes regarding Blood Atonement being done and then letting the "smoke ascend up".   Does anyone have an interpretation for this or input as to why this this was included in the descriptions?

I think it might refer to the process of animal sacrifice: the burning of the carcass after the slaughter (and the related blood-shedding, bloodletting, etc.).

Link to comment

I'm not sure if this quote from Brigham Young was shared or not:


“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

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wow!  That first quote by Grant is pretty terrifying to read!  Can you imagine being in the congregation that day?  I'll bet saints were quaking in their boots.  I wonder what brought that on (from the leaders)?

Why doesn't the church still preach blood atonement?  It seems it is still a church doctrine, correct?

Or is blood atonement thought of like the Adam God doctrines from the early days of the church and no longer believed (by most and by current leaders)?

I found this in an article about capital punishment and the use of firing squads (quote by Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center):

Quote

 

Is the use of firing squads tied to Utah's founding by Mormons?

There has been speculation that the practice was once tied to the Mormon principle of "blood atonement," which says certain sins are so serious that people must spill their blood to make amends. Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renounces any connection between firing squads and blood atonement.

"Mormons disown that idea now," Dieter said. "They say, 'We do not require bloodletting.'"

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-firing-squad-qa-20150312-story.html

But, that may only be in relation to the need of using a firing squad for capital punishment.

I don't know when the last church leader stated anything regarding the current beliefs on Blood Atonement.  

Link to comment

The idea of burnt offerings anciently is that the smoke/scent of the offering would rise to the gods and the pleasant odor would put them in a good mood (vey simplified summary).  I assume there was some carryover in symbology for the Israelites and then for some of the early LDS prophets, smoke being used as a reference to the sacrificial nature of the act.  Smoke does not appear to be a synonym for scent, but much like incense has been times used as a term for prayers, the synbolism is more important than the reality...never having seen blood fall on ground, I assume it doesn't actually smoke though it might steam in cold weather.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Calm said:
  • Reference for previous post:

  • Revelation 8:4

    4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.

  •  

So was there incense burned when there was blood spilt for atonement?  Or do you think it is just purely symbolic?

I wouldn't think the smell of a body burning (human or animal) would smell too great.  Was incense burned to cover the smell of these ritual sacrifices possibly?

Link to comment

The term smoke I take to be symbolic (although I could be wrong), but the blood shed going up to God is very scriptural.  Along the same lines the scriptures speak of the blood of the saints crying from the dust.

Genesis 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;

D&C 136:36 For they killed the prophets, and them that were sent unto them; and they have shed innocent blood, which crieth from the ground against them.

Whether the blood crieth or smoketh I think the principle is the same.  Shedding of blood appears to have much more significance than any other form of death.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wow!  That first quote by Grant is pretty terrifying to read!  Can you imagine being in the congregation that day?  I'll bet saints were quaking in their boots.  I wonder what brought that on (from the leaders)?

President Grant wasn't called "Brigham's Sledgehammer" for nothing.  He was one of the driving forces in the Mormon Reformation of the 1850s.
Being politically correct was not a concern for him.

Quote

Why doesn't the church still preach blood atonement?  It seems it is still a church doctrine, correct?

Or is blood atonement thought of like the Adam God doctrines from the early days of the church and no longer believed (by most and by current leaders)?

 

Depends on how you define "Blood Atonement".  The principles behind the practice are still just as valid doctrinally as they ever were.
But the practice is one that has been completely disavowed, just like Adam-God.  Where each leader falls on the spectrum between "the doctrine" and the "disavowed practice" I do not know.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Sadly we abandoned this beautiful doctrine. :( 

"Beautiful" isn't exactly the word that comes to mind when you read Jedediah Grant's quote (or Brigham Young's quotes here).

But maybe you're being sarcastic? 

There's probably a good reason that current church leaders distance themselves from these teachings.  

Link to comment

Here's an article with more information regarding church leader's views on Blood Atonement.  It's an interesting article to read and has some history, and a possible statement from Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley that "blood atonement ended with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ" (statement made before he was the Prophet but was in the 1st Presidency).

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_15126927

Quote

 

When Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, began proposing elimination of the firing-squad option in the late 1990s, the LDS Church itself did not object. Yet talk of blood atonement percolated "in quiet, backroom discussions," she recalls. "A couple of people in prominent positions said to me, 'We've got to have blood atonement.' "

By 2004, Allen says, all mention of the Mormon concept "just went away" and the measure passed.

 

 

Quote

 

The LDS Church disavows any connection to blood atonement, says spokesman Scott Trotter. "[It] 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 by ALarson
Link to comment

I all has reference to the Old Testament temple practice of sacrifice and the burning of incense.  The smoke was representative of the saints sacrifice and humble prayers.  Someone paying for their sin through blood atonement would be, symbolically, showing true remorse and their humble plea to God for forgiveness.  That being said, I am pretty sure this whole blood atonement thing was Brigham Young's version of the TV show, "Scared Straight".  In the 1850's , as JLHPROF mentioned, Brigham Young felt the Saints were losing focus and he was very frustrated how many were not taking their covenants seriously and he started a period of reformation.  He and Jedediah Grant went out scaring the crap out of people in an attempt to get them to straighten up.  I don't know how successful it was, but I am sure it scared quite a few.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JulieM said:

So was there incense burned when there was blood spilt for atonement?  Or do you think it is just purely symbolic?

I wouldn't think the smell of a body burning (human or animal) would smell too great.  Was incense burned to cover the smell of these ritual sacrifices possibly?

Once the skin was burned off, think barbecue.

Incense was often burned indoors and out (in pagan and Jewish traditions and then Christian though that last lacked the animal sacrifices iirc) and was considered purifying (perhaps it was though of like Febreze is now…it only really covers the smell but people thinks it really removes/neutralizes the odors), I wouldn't be surprised if the habit started to cover the smell of blood and just having animals around in general. 

However the idea is there that God is pleased by the smell and affected by it; whether originally it was seen as symbolic or it became symbolic as an incorporeal God became the dominant teaching, I don't know.  There is no mention of incense in the Bible that I can recall off hand that occurred before offerings became organized at the temple as opposed to say Adam or Noah's.  Maybe volgadon or Robert Smith or someone with more depth in the OT knows when incense started being used by the Hebrews.  I just remember reading a number of myths in a variety of cultures that connect pleasing the gods with smells and burnt offerings/incense.  Now this may be those with the Bible and Roman/Greek mythology backgrounds imposing their concepts on other cultures but it seems that it would be logical if one believed that the gods lived above mankind high in sacred mountains, in the sky, or in the heavens and saw that smoke rose up, that they would see this as a potential way to communicate with the gods.

Quote

 

Genesis 8:21New International Version (NIV)

21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

 

Notice that incense is added to a grain offering to create a pleasing smell (apparently they didn't just bake the flour and oil, but burnt it so no yummy baked bread smell :) ).

Quote

When anyone brings a grain offering to the Lord, their offering is to be of the finest flour. They are to pour olive oil on it, put incense on it 2 and take it to Aaron’s sons the priests. The priest shall take a handful of the flour and oil, together with all the incense, and burn this as a memorial[a] portion on the altar, a food offering,an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 3 The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the food offerings presented to the Lord.

Leviticus 2

As with other offerings, much of it would go to feed the priests and Levites while only a portion was burnt.

The sweet smell of offerings is even translated into Jesus' sacrifice, though the actual smell of the killing grounds must have been horrendous:

Quote

 

Ephesians 5:2New International Version (NIV)

2 and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God

 

This looks like an intelligent article on incense burning:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8099-incense

Link to comment

Here is another article from the same site, explaining the types and details of offerings:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1536-animal-offerings#anchor7

It sounds quite messy, but the technique was probably developed to keep the bloodletting side of things very efficient and well contained:

Quote

 

Times of Sacrifice.

No particular time of the day is specified for sacrifices, except that the daily holocausts are to be killed"in the morning" and "between the two evenings" (Ex. xvi. 12; xxix. 39, 41; xxx. 8; Num. xxviii. 4). When the gift had been properly prepared, the offerer, whether man or woman, brought (Lev. iv. 4, 14; xii. 6; xiv. 23; xv. 29) it to the place where alone it was lawful to sacrifice—"before Yhwh," or "to the door of the tent of meeting," i.e., the court where the altar of burnt offering stood. To offer it elsewhere would have been shedding blood (Lev. xvii. 3-5, 8, 9). The injunction to offer in the proper place is repeated more especially in regard to the individual class of sacrifice (Lev. i. 3; iv. 4, 14; vi. 18; xii. 6; xiii. 2, 8, 12; xv. 29; xix. 21). The victim was killed "on the side of the altar [of holocausts] northward" (Lev. i. 11, iv. 24, vi. 18, vii. 2, xiv. 13). When the offering, if a quadruped, had been brought within the precincts of the sanctuary, and after examination had been found qualified, the offerer laid one hand upon the victim's head (Lev. i. 4; iii. 2, 8, 13; iv. 5, 15). On the scape-goat, the high priest laid both of his hands (ib. xvi. 21). This "laying on of hands" ("semikah") might not be performed by a substitute (Aaron and his sons laid hands on the sin- and burnt offerings killed on their own behalf; see Lev. viii. 14, 18). After the imposition of his hand, the offerer at once killed the animal. If presented by the community, the victim was immolated by one of the elders (ib. iv. 15). Priests might perform this act for the offering Israelites (II Chron. xxx. 15-47; xxxv. 10, 11), though the priestly function began only with the act of receiving the blood, or, in bloodless offerings, with the taking of a handful to be burned on the altar, while the Israelite himself poured over and mixed the oil. The priests invariably killed the doves or pigeons by wringing off their heads (Lev. i. 15, v. 8).

The Blood.

The utmost care was taken by the priest to receive the blood; it represented the life or soul. None but a circumcised Levite in a proper state of Levitical purity and attired in proper vestments might perform this act; so, too, the sprinkling of the blood was the exclusive privilege of the "priests, the sons of Aaron" (ib. i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13). Moses sprinkled it when Aaron and his sons were inducted; but this was exceptional (ib. viii. 15, 19, 23). In holocausts and thank-offerings the blood was sprinkled "round about upon the altar" (ib. i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13). In the sin-offering, the later (ib. vii. 2) practise seems to have been to put some of the blood on the horns of the brazen altar, or on those of the golden altar when that was used, or even on parts of the holy edifice (ib. iv. 6, 7, 17, 18, 25, 30, 34). The same distinction appears in the case of turtle-doves and pigeons: when burnt offerings, their blood was smeared on the side of the brazen altar (ib. viii. 15; xvi. 18, 19); when sin-offerings, it was partly sprinkled on the side of the altar and partly smeared on the base. The animal was then flayed, the skin falling to the priest (ib. i. 6, vii. 8). In some Sin-Offerings the skin was burned along with the flesh (ib. iv. 11, 12, 20, 21; comp. ib. iv. 26, 31, 35). If the entire animal was devoted to the flames, the carcass was "cut into pieces" (ib. i. 6, viii. 20). The bowels and legs of the animals used in the burnt offerings were carefully washed (ib. i. 9, viii. 21, ix. 14) before they were placed on the altar. Certain offerings or portions thereof had to pass through the ceremony of waving, a rite which is not further described in the Bible (see Sacrifice, in Rabbinical Literature).

 

Kosher killing appears to result in less suffering of the animal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita#Procedure

Quote

Temple Grandin has stated that she has "observed that if the rules (of the five forbidden techniques) are disobeyed the animal will struggle. If these rules are obeyed the animal has little reaction."[11]

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Keq82 said:

I'm not sure if this quote from Brigham Young was shared or not:


“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

When I read stuff like this from Brigham Young and the early leaders, it makes me thankful that the U.S. government did step in and didn't allow Utah to continue as a theocracy.

Link to comment

Utah was the only state that had a firing squad for use in capital punishment for 40 years until 2004.  But Gov. Herbert brought the option back in 2015  The reason I bring that up is that maybe the two correlate.

Also, isn't blood atonement basically capital punishment in some respects?  Of course getting killed for adultery goes back to bible times so that is extreme for BY to use as punishment or scare people with.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Calm said:

Here is another article from the same site, explaining the types and details of offerings:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1536-animal-offerings#anchor7

It sounds quite messy, but the technique was probably developed to keep the bloodletting side of things very efficient and well contained:

Kosher killing appears to result in less suffering of the animal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita#Procedure

 

Thanks for posting these links and information, Calm.....all very interesting to read.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...