🩸 Blood Atonement¶
Estimated time to read: 27 minutes
Modern Church's comments¶
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a line from the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It is spoken by Queen Gertrude in response to the insincere overacting of a character in the play within a play created by Prince Hamlet to elicit evidence of his uncle's guilt in the murder of his father, the King of Denmark.
The phrase is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt of someone's sincerity, and especially that someone who denies something very strongly is hiding the truth.
— The lady doth protest too much, methinks, Wikipedia
I'm not pretentious enough to claim that I know more than a handful of Shakespearean lines, but this one fits pretty well. The modern LDS church so vehemently rejects anything to do with this, leading to what I would call a case of Streisand Effect. Personally, I would find this teaching doctrine a lot less compelling if I didn't find so many strongly-worded rebuttals and denials that it ever existed.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism¶
The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior's sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the atonement of Christ.
Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood— presumably by capital punishment— as part of the process of atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.
Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement— which was based on voluntary submission by an offender— into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood atonement.
— Blood Atonement, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Daniel H Ludlow, 1992
"We were just kidding! We talked about killing people if they sinned, but it wasn't meant literally, it was just... a rhetorical device. Also, it was voluntary! That makes it not weird anymore, right? You trust church leaders enough for them to decide if you're consenting, right?"
And, wouldn't you know it, "it was normal for church leaders to (threaten to) kill their sinful followers in 19th century manifest destiny, why are you making such a big deal out of it" is the note they chose to end on.
Need I remind you that during Brigham's rule over Salt Lake, banishment meant death by exposure to natural elements. You wouldn't just take a Lyft down to Provo and be fine; anything west of the Mississippi river at this time was effectively lawless territory and harsh wilderness, and by this point Native Americans were getting the idea that these European-descended folks don't have good intentions. If the theocratic state didn't like you, you were pretty well fucked. You could try to survive the two-week walk back to Omaha, if you were feeling spicy.
Mormon Doctrine¶
From the days of Joseph Smith to the present, wicked and evilly-disposed persons have fabricated false and slanderous stories to the effect that the Church, in the early days of this dispensation, engaged in a practice of blood atonement whereunder the blood of apostates and others was shed by the Church as an atonement for their sins. These claims are false and were known by their originators to be false. There is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught.
. . .
But 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. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment. Thus, also, if a person has so progressed in righteousness that his calling and election has been made sure, if he has come to that position where he knows "by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood" that he is sealed up unto eternal life (D. & C. 131:5), then if he gains forgiveness for certain grievous sins, he must "be destroyed in the flesh," and "delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God." (D. & C. 132:19-27.)
President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "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.) This doctrine can only be practiced in its fulness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands. . . .
"It's an outright fabrication, a total lie with no basis in historical documentation. Anyway, here's how it works, and some historical documentation."
I guess we can take comfort in knowing that we have two pre-conditions before this is something to worry about: A) a theocratic, Christian-nationalist state, and B) you have your second anointing. I'll be real with you- I don't really feel that comforted by knowing it can't happen here, today, given those conditions.
Deseret News¶
If you are like me and have the attention span of a toddler with an iPad, you'd probably prefer a short-form audio-video medium to summarize the upcoming notes... Good news, I've got just the video for you!
jonathan frakes telling you you're wrong for 47 seconds
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday:
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.
— Mormon church statement on blood atonement, Deseret News, 18 June 2010
"Look, people got emotional when using rhetorical devices for dramatic effect. It's not like we'd ever formally teach that or anything... Anyway, there isn't an author to attribute this statement to. Get back to cleaning our toilets on your Saturday morning pls k thnx"
If you're ready for some excitement, follow the links to the comment section if that Deseret article. Among my favorites: "Can someone direct me to the official statement on a Church website? Where did the Deseret News get this information? I have not been able to find it."
And once again, lest we overlook it, we've again encountered the "this was common and normal at the time" explanation.
Gospel Topics Essay¶
Nineteenth-century Americans were accustomed to violent language, both religious and otherwise. Throughout the century, revivalists had used violent imagery to encourage the unconverted to repent and to urge backsliders to reform. 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. Such preaching led to increased strain between the Latter-day Saints and the relatively few non-Mormons in Utah, including federally appointed officials.
— Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints, Gospel Topics Essays
"And we never talked about it again after that, easing the strain between LDS and heathen outsiders forever."
And let's not miss it for a third time, "19th century Americans were used to this because it was super-normal." "It was all just rhetoric, calm down. It was in the Old Testament. What part? ... I don't know, but it wasn't weird at the time. 😤"
Within the above quote is footnote #36:
See, for example, Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 4:53–54; and Heber C. Kimball, in Journal of Discourses, 7:16–21. This concept, which came to be known as blood atonement, was a stock component of anti-Mormon rhetoric in the 19th century. 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. 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.”
Easily disproven? Can you point me to a disproving claim, then?
"It's likely that in least one instance, at least one member at some point time in history maybe did this." I don't know that I could fit more qualifiers in that sentence if I tried to. That's genuinely impressive.
To be fair, that quote from the essay does also have a footnote on this kind of religious violence was normal. That footnote points to some cited sources. At the time of writing this, I haven't delved into those citations, but that sounds like something I ought to do at some point.
Proponents¶
If you're reading this in a place where playing music won't draw unwanted attention, play this in the background while reading these notes:
Corb Lund: Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Or, if you prefer to read without distracting music, consider how convincing is the rationale we've covered about this just being rhetoric.
Also: general conference would be a lot more interesting to watch if they had some talks like the following quotes.
Heber C Kimball¶
If men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants.
— Apostates, etc; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 4:375.
We'll start short. Heber had more to say on this matter in later JoD volumes. Heber's phrase “according to their covenants” sounds to me like the promises Mormons make in their sacred temple ritual.
Brigham Young¶
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 do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. 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.
— Atonement By the Shedding of Blood, etc.; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:53
. . . 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 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, 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 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.
— Atonement By the Shedding of Blood, etc; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:219 - 220
Idk man this is starting to sound like the rationale of serial killers. "I'm not murdering, I'm saving them! I'm doing them a real solid, a right proper kindness by bleeding them dry. You should try it sometime."
Jedediah Grant¶
I say what ought such a people to do with covenant breakers? "Why," says one, "forgive them to be sure." Very good, but what else ought they to do? What does [Paul] the apostle say? He says they are worthy of death. I wonder whether he was really in earnest, or happened to get into a wild freak and advanced principles and sentiments that were incorrect? I am inclined to believe his decision was a correct one.
Then what ought this meek people who keep the commandments of God do unto them? "Why," says one, "they ought to pray to the Lord to kill them." I want to know if you would wish the Lord to come down and do all your dirty work? — Many of the Latter Day Saints will pray and petition and supplicate the Lord to do a thousand things they themselves would be ashamed to do. I would like men never to ask Jesus Christ the Lamb of God, his Father, their associates or angels of the high heavens to do anything they would not be willing to do themselves.
When a man prays for a thing, he ought to be willing to perform it himself. But if the Latter Day Saints should put to death the covenant breakers, it would try the faith of the very meek, just, and pious ones among them and it would cause a great deal of whining in Israel.
In the days of Moses for certain crimes they were to bring the guilty persons before the congregation, and each man and woman were required to bring a stone to throw at the person worthy of death.
Then there was another odd commandment— The Lord God commanded them not to pity the person whom they killed; but to execute the law of God upon persons worthy of death. This should be done by the entire congregation showing no pity.
. . .
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 there is another law that certain sins cannot be atoned for by baptism, 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 to save such? They used to do it anciently. We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him. We would not baptize a man unless we baptized him to save him.
. . .
So it is with the people of God. 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? Let every man preach for himself; I am preaching my own faith today. 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.
— Deseret News, July 27 1854, discourse by Jedediah Grant
George Q Cannon¶
After the arguments were finished several asked me questions; I told them I would with pleasure answer everything I could. Ward was very anxious to draw me out on the doctrine of blood atonement. He asked me to explain it. I told him if the Com. could spare the time I would do so. They had not the time some said. Then I told him that I had just received a communication on that subject published by Elder John Taylor, a prominent man in the Church, which I would let him have to read. This satisfied him for awhile; but he
again asked me to give a little explanation of our doctrine of “blood atonement.” I said we believed that a man who committed murder, adultery or seduction ought to be killed, had forfeited his life and thathe ought to makeit would be better for that man in eternity if he atoned for his crime with his blood in this life. “And,” said Ward, the Church out of mercy to the man takes his life?” Not at all, I replied. Such things I know are charged; but I defy any person to show a case where life has been taken by the Church.
— The Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 April 1874 Church Historian's Press
Note that those crossouts and edit notes aren't mine; I've only added highlights.
What warrants this awful fate?¶
Don't forget that Elder McConkie did outline some conditions for when Jesus' infinite atonement isn't infinite enough for you.
I'm not about to advocate that any of these are good or harmless, but... Deciding that someone is jeopardizing their salvation, and needs to be "sent home" by violent means right away sure does make this sound like a death cult.
Murder
I am 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 ascend thereof up to God…
— Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 5:296 [1], [2]
Adultery
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.
— Men Judged According to Their Knowledge, etc; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:247).
Stealing
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[.]
— President B. Young’s Journey South, etc; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:108).
Marriage to a person of black skin
Shall I tell you of the law of God in regards 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.
— The Persecutions of the Saints, etc; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 10:110
Covenant Breaking
I say, there are men and women that I would advise to go to the Presidency 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 bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye… 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 … 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.
— Rebuking Iniquity, Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses 4:49-51).
Prostitution
It is believed in the world that our females are all common women. Well, in one sense they are common—that is, they are like all other women, I suppose; but they are not unclean, for we wipe all unclean ones from our midst: we not only wipe them from our streets, but we wipe them out of existence. And if the world want to practice uncleanness, and bring their prostitutes here, if they do not repent and forsake such sins, we will wipe the evil out. We will not have them in this valley, unless they repent; for, so help me God, while I live, I will lend my hand to wipe such persons out; and I know this people will.
Such things cannot exist here. . . . It never can be allowed in this community in male or female, whether they belong to the Church or not; and we will wipe out such abominations, the Lord being our helper.
That is sanctification. Our holy religion is to purify, purge, cleanse, and sanctify this people. We care not what people think or say about our course in this respect; it is our religion, and we will not have corruption where we dwell, if we can help it. That is one reason we were not permitted to live in the States: we were determined, by the help of God, to be virtuous men and women.
. . .
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.
— Sanctification; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 7:18
"Wipe out" is a lot less explicit than "I'm about to give you some height-reduction surgery". However, threatening to wipe out evil abominations from existence doesn't seem so veiled. I don't feel like that's got much plausible deniability.
Miscellaneous excerpts¶
Deseret News, again¶
Correspondent: Do you believe in blood atonement?
Brigham Young: I do, and I believe that Lee has not half atoned for his great crime. The savior died for all the sins of the world by shedding his blood, and then I believe that he who sheds the blood of man willfully, by man shall his blood be shed.
— Interview with Brigham Young, Deseret News, 23 May 1877 (1, 2)
Doctrines of Salvation¶
Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1-3, is an authoritative work, written by the most outstanding scholar of the gospel in the Church containing a wealth of explanations about a vast array of gospel topics, many of which can not be found in other sources. . . . Explore these fascinating topics, plus many more, from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith compiled by Elder Bruce R. McConkie.
— Summary of Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Smith Foundation
Keep your torch and pitchfork at arm's length; I acknowledge that this is not a satisfying "official" source for the document, and I'm not about to drop $40 for a hard copy. This site appears to not be officially sanctioned. But also don't forget that it's [current year] and we have the internet. BYU will loan it via their digital library if you'd like to go that route.
Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon? And is not this further reason why you should discard the book as well as the name? Is it not safe for us to rely upon the scriptures for the solution of problems of this kind?
. . .
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.
MURDERERS AND THE ATONEMENT. Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ. This is the doctrine you are pleased to call the "blood atonement of Brighamism." This is the doctrine of Christ our Redeemer, who died for us. This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it.
. . .
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. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning. that “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man.”
. . .
CHURCH NEVER PRACTICED BLOOD ATONEMENT. Your report says: "This doctrine was introduced by Brigham Young" and that it meant "death to anyone who left the Church . . . that the apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear . . . saved his soul." Why you made this statement you best know; but were you not aware that it was but the repetition of the ravings of enemies of the Church, without one grain of truth?
Did you not 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? Do you know of anyone whose blood was ever shed by the command of the Church, or members thereof, to "save his soul?" . . .
Never in the history of this people can the time be pointed to when the Church ever attempted to pass judgment on, or execute an apostate as per your statement. There are men living in Utah today who left the Church in the earliest history of our State who feel as secure, and are just as secure and free from molestation from their former associates as you or any other man could be.
— THE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT, Doctrines Of Salvation, Volume 1 (1, 2)
I intend to dig into those footnote references; he mentions numerous scripture passages, and at face value, I am very skeptical.
Not sure what conclusion we’re trying to reach here, honestly. The section appears to have various sub-headings, marked by all-caps short statements? It starts out acknowledging that Christ's atonement covers everything, but... maybe just most things. Then we focus on how this is an anomaly found only in the Brighamite sect of Mormonism, along with numerous scriptural backings. Next... "Yeah, if you goof up too bad, you've got to die." Then we make a hard left turn, a complete 180, asserting "this is all nonsense hearsay, 'without one grain of truth.' This never happened. You can't name anyone who actually got involved, can you? Mic drop."
