Blood atonement

In Mormonism, blood atonement is the name given to a controversial understanding of the words of some early Latter-day Saint ("LDS") leaders, particularly Brigham Young, that there are certain sins such as murder which require that murderers "have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins"[1] in order for the Atonement of Jesus to be able to function. In other words, the giving of one's life serves as partial restitution for the life taken; restitution being an important element of repentance in the LDS faith.

While criticized by many Mormons and eventually repudiated as official Church doctrine by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church") in 1978,^{[citation needed]} this concept still has some fringe adherents, and it is rarely advanced by conservative Mormons to justify capital punishment. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement saying that it neither supports nor opposes capital punishment, and that it is a matter to be decided entirely by civil law.^[1]

Those critical of Mormonism suggest that this concept formed the basis for inciting the murders of some early Latter-day Saint apostates, dissenters, and critics. There is evidence that some early members may have used the idea of a blood atonement to justify these murders, but no evidence exists to suggest that Brigham Young even tacitly sanctioned such behavior.

The Concept as Taught by Brigham Young

The LDS Church teaches that Jesus will atone for the sins of all who repent, except for those who have committed "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". In addition, some Latter-day Saints believe that a condition of repentance is to restore what was lost (similar to the Unification Church concept of indemnity). On September 21, 1856, Brigham Young took that idea which was introduced by Willard Richards and George A. Smith, further, and stated:

"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 might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course." Journal of Discourses 4:43.

Later, on February 8, 1857, Young taught:

"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 ... 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 taken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin he knows will deprive him of the exaltation 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 would say, 'shed my blood that I might 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?" (Journal of Discourses 4:219).

Controversy

Critics of the doctrine argue that Young's statements encouraged Mormons to murder apostates. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has repeatedly stated that it has never attempted to pass judgment on, or execute, an apostate. There were early reports of a few deaths by the above-mentioned methods for apostates or known 'ruffians' by members of the church. The rumors of an official LDS church connection have not been substantiated or tied to the church by recent historians, although critics of the church show convincing parallels between blood atonement and some killings. Apologists have countered that such parallels are explained as unofficial and unsanctioned examples of individuals applying blood atonement as they saw fit. Most historians both within and outside of the church are awaiting new documentation or primary sources to determine who was responsible for these deaths and have largely left the issue open-ended.

One of the examples cited by critics of the church is a set of murders in Springville, Utah of individuals who, according to historical documents and court records, were "very questionable characters." Judge Elias Smith stated in regard to the case: "We have carefully examined all the evidence furnished by a remarkably accurate stenographic reporter, and can only conclude that evidence before the court goes to show' that Durfee, Potter and two of the Parrishes got into a row about matters best, if not only, known to themselves, and for that Potter and two Parrishes were killed." -- Records published in the Deseret News, April 6th, 1859.

Warren Jeffs, leader of the LDS splinter-group Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a polygamous sect based in Arizona and Utah, USA, has allegedly indicated his desire to implement the doctrine in his church. Former FLDS member Robert Richter reported to the Phoenix New Times that Jeffs repeatedly alluded in his sermons to blood atonement for serious sins such as murder and adultery. Richter also claims that he was asked to design a thermostat for a high temperature furnace that would be capable of destroying DNA evidence if such "atonements" were to take place [2].

Similar Non-Mormon Rhetoric from the Period

The idea of redemption through bloodshed appears in other contemporary speeches and sermons from the 1850s and 1860s, and does not seem confined to Utah-Mormonism. Sermons of the time, specifically referring to the Second Coming of Jesus, mention that the nations of the earth would pay with their blood for their wickedness. Even in the political spectrum, similar language was used in reference to the "sin" of slavery. One such example is found in the second inaugural speech [3] given by Abraham Lincoln. He said, referring to the Civil War that America must recognise how great its sin was by the magnitude of the Civil War:

The prayers of both could not be answered...If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood draw with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'

Similar statements are found of nations and people's having to pay for their own sins with blood, famine and destruction are found throughout Protestant sermons of the time period and earlier. Jonathan Edwards famous "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" sermon also alludes to men having to suffer for sins [4]:

[I]n an unregenerate state...God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without any pity...he will have no compassion upon you, he will not forbear the executions of his wrath, or in the least lighten his hand; there shall be no moderation or mercy, nor will God then at all stay his rough wind; he will have no regard to your welfare, nor be at all careful lest you should suffer too much in any other sense, than only that you shall not suffer beyond what strict justice requires.

Modern Status of the Doctrine

Like several doctrines formulated by Brigham Young (see, e.g., Adam-God theory), the blood atonement doctrine has been widely criticized by Latter Day Saints. However, the doctrine has also garnered many prominent adherents in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church historian and later President Joseph Fielding Smith taught the following about blood atonement:

"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.... 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." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 133-138.)

In addition, the late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie agreed with Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith that "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 then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins." (Mormon Doctrine at 92).

In addition, in his first edition of the book Mormon Doctrine, McConkie opined that because blood atonement requires the "spilling of blood upon the ground", execution by firing squad was superior to execution by hanging, which would not suffice to create a blood atonement. See "Hanging", Mormon Doctrine. Upon pressure from the Church, this doctrine was deleted from McConkie's second edition of the book. However, this doctrine was seen by some commentators as one of the reasons why Utah was one of the last three U.S. states to continue the practice of execution by firing squad. This was discontinued on March 15, 2004. While the decision for this law was being made, the Church was consulted and stated that they had nothing against the discontinuation of this practice.

However, in 1978, Bruce R. McConkie, acting under the direction of Spencer W. Kimball and the First Presidency, repudiated the blood atonement doctrine:

"You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early church leaders have said and written about this doctrine and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the Church today.

"If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is Yes. If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No." (Letter from Bruce R. McConkie to Thomas B. McAffee, October 18, 1978.)

In McConkie's letter, he attempted to reconcile this repudiation with his earlier statements and those of Brigham Young by suggesting that the doctrine could, in fact, be valid, but only in a pure theocracy. He stated:

"There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins. Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses." (Letter from Bruce R. McConkie to Thomas B. McAffee, October 18, 1978.)

Thus, deriving from McConkie's statements, one popular Mormon apologetic explanation is that the doctrine of blood atonement never truly existed, and that Brigham Young's statements were theoretical musings about what the doctrine would be if the Church were a theocracy, told to highlight the seriousness of murder and apostasy to the church members in the western frontier, where vigilante justice was often carried out. While persons might have their own blood shed to atone for their sins in a theocracy, the argument goes, there is no such option where there is separation between church and state. This argument has the advantage that it repudiates the blood atonement doctrine, yet it does not necessitate the conclusion that Brigham Young was wrong in his original statements in 1856 and 1857.

Some modern Mormon apologetics also compare Young’s statement to the statement of Jesus Christ in the New Testament that it would be better for those who offend children to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the depths of the sea than to be born.

In sum, at present, the leading representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have formally repudiated the existence of a blood atonement doctrine.

References

May, Dean L. Utah: A People's History. Bonneville Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987. ISBN 0-87480-284-9.
Bruce R. McConkie "Blood Atonement Doctrine", Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, 1966, 2d ed.).
Charles W. Penrose, Blood Atonement, As Taught by Leading Elders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City, 1884).
Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Doctrine of Blood Atonement", 1 Answers to Gospel Questions 180-91 (Salt Lake City, 1957).
Lowell M. Snow, "Blood Atonement", 1 Encyclopedia of Mormonism (MacMillan 1992).