Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints practice "Blood Atonement"?

[Micaldor]

This is a letter on the subject written by Bruce R. McConkie, who was acting under the direction of the Prophet and the First Presidency.

shields-research.org/General/blood_atonement.htm

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Did you read the letter? It says no to your question. I personally had never heard of blood atonement until your question in this thread and had to read the letter to find out what it meant. Obviously, we do not believe in it, except as it pertains to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for our sins.
Do Catholic’s believe in it? They change the wine to blood every week in the Eucharist, maybe that is blood atonement. We don’t literally change our sacrament to blood and flesh, but only take it in remembrance of His blood and body which He sacrificed for us, and of His atonement for our sins, and last but not least to reconfirm the promise we made to Him in baptism.
BJ

 

[Micaldor]

I know that the answer is no. That’s my point. I posted this because it comes up from time to time. I hope that lots of people will see this and learn that they can’t belive the things Anti-Saints say. They are as reliable as the Anti-Catholics, if not less so.

 

[petra]

Micaldor:

This is a letter on the subject written by Bruce R. McConkie, who was acting under the direction of the Prophet and the First Presidency.

shields-research.org/General/blood_atonement.htm

The LDS Church does not itself currently practice Blood Atonement, but remember the State of Utah was a religious colony prior to becoming a state. The religious colony DID practice blood atonement. Brigham Young, as the President and Prophet of the Mormon Church and head of the Utah colony, originated the doctrine of blood atonement. He said,

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness … 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 know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine, but it is to save them, not to destroy them…

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… 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… 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. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54

Brigham Young issued many other statements on the doctrine, as well as other current Prophets of the Church. Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th President and Prophet said in 1954,

TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement… man may commit certain grevious 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 … And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, Vol. 1, pp. 133-136)

The firing squad was instituted as capital punishment because it was believed that a murderer’s sins could only be atoned by the shedding of his own blood. After Utah became a state, the practice continued as the civil method of capital punishment.

McConkie denies this doctrine because it is embarrassing and he is attempting to change doctrine. The history of Mormon theology is that of continual evolution and contradiction. McConkie even contradicts himself. In 1979 he said,

“under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing blood of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must have their own blood shed to atone for their sins.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, page 92)"

So while the LDS Church does not currently practice blood atonement, it IS a doctrine. And that doctrine is instituted through the (heavily Mormon influenced) State’s method of capital punishment: death by firing squad.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Are you dense? It is obvious you prefer to believe a lie. Bruce McConkie said NO, I said NO and the answer is NO, we do not and never have. But, we believe in capital punishment, and so does the state of California and other states as well. It is a law, not a doctrine of our church. The people vote on whether they want it or not, in California we voted to have capitol punishment, I do not believe it had anything to do with religion.
IT IS NOT DOCTRINE, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHURCH DOCTRINE NEVER HAS HAD AND NEVER WILL HAVE, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU WISH TO INSIST DIFFERENTLY.
As pointed out the firing squad is no worse penalty than the electric chair or needle. In fact they are saying now that the needle is a very stressful death with the person being fully aware of his pending death as the deadly poison is released into his veins.
What is your point to argue about something that was answered and then say the answer(which the poster himself says is correct) is wrong? You are one of the people the poster was referring to, who like to take something they have heard and try to stir up hatred for other religions. Come on now…you are carrying some kind of grudge, tell us what has happened in your life to stir up such anger against the LDS church. Did some weird Mormon cause you some harm?

BJ

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

Are you dense? It is obvious you prefer to believe a lie. Bruce McConkie said NO, I said NO and the answer is NO, we do not and never have. But, we believe in capital punishment, and so does the state of California and other states as well. It is a law, not a doctrine of our church. The people vote on whether they want it or not, in California we voted to have capitol punishment, I do not believe it had anything to do with religion.
IT IS NOT DOCTRINE, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHURCH DOCTRINE NEVER HAS HAD AND NEVER WILL HAVE, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU WISH TO INSIST DIFFERENTLY.
As pointed out the firing squad is no worse penalty than the electric chair or needle. In fact they are saying now that the needle is a very stressful death with the person being fully aware of his pending death as the deadly poison is released into his veins.
What is your point to argue about something that was answered and then say the answer(which the poster himself says is correct) is wrong? You are one of the people the poster was referring to, who like to take something they have heard and try to stir up hatred for other religions. Come on now…you are carrying some kind of grudge, tell us what has happened in your life to stir up such anger against the LDS church. Did some weird Mormon cause you some harm?

BJ!!! What’s going on??? Why are you so angry and defensive in your posts all of a sudden??? This person cited LDS church documents that have LDS leaders talking about Blood Atonement. Now maybe those were personal opinions and not church doctrine, but the statements were made (I’ve seen them elsewhere besides just here). I don’t see how getting angry and defensive and accusing other people is going to effect a charitable discussion.

 

[boppysbud]

Of course the Mormons have practiced the blood atonement doctrine. BJ it’s right there is the words of the second “prophet, seer, and revelator” of your church Brigham Young. You just ignore his words and the facts of history and say it has never been done.

Ever hear of John D. Lee? He was the leader of the gang responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and was scapegoated for it. He sat on his own coffin waiting for his fellow Mormons to dig his grave before he was executed by firing squad. BTW his execution was carried out by members of “the church” not the government.

Blood atonement is no practiced anymore by the Utah mianstream Mormons, but it is still done by Fundamentalist Mormons (polygamists) to this day.

In UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN by John Krakauer it is related how Ron Lafferty murdered his sister-in-law Brenda Wright Lafferty and her 15 month old daughter in cold blood as an act of blood atonement after he got a “personal revelation” from “God” telling him to do so.

Ever hear of the Dannites?

 

[petra]

BJ Colbert:

Are you dense? It is obvious you prefer to believe a lie. Bruce McConkie said NO, I said NO and the answer is NO, we do not and never have. But, we believe in capital punishment, and so does the state of California and other states as well. It is a law, not a doctrine of our church. The people vote on whether they want it or not, in California we voted to have capitol punishment, I do not believe it had anything to do with religion.
IT IS NOT DOCTRINE, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHURCH DOCTRINE NEVER HAS HAD AND NEVER WILL HAVE, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU WISH TO INSIST DIFFERENTLY.
As pointed out the firing squad is no worse penalty than the electric chair or needle. In fact they are saying now that the needle is a very stressful death with the person being fully aware of his pending death as the deadly poison is released into his veins.
What is your point to argue about something that was answered and then say the answer(which the poster himself says is correct) is wrong? You are one of the people the poster was referring to, who like to take something they have heard and try to stir up hatred for other religions. Come on now…you are carrying some kind of grudge, tell us what has happened in your life to stir up such anger against the LDS church. Did some weird Mormon cause you some harm?

BJ

Peace to you, BJ.

No, I’m not angry at all.

I just think it is relevant that McConkie said that “under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing blood of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must have their own blood shed to atone for their sins.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, page 92)"

The fact that he later said blood atonement was not a doctrine doesn’t change the fact that he previously said it was!

 

[BDawg]

The quotations posted about “blood atonement” are fine with me. Essentially, they are saying that, IN THEORY, Mormons believe in capital punishment for certain crimes (i.e., murder and some other crimes mentioned in the Law of Moses and even before that), and if one is guilty of such a crime, he ought to submit to that punishment.

In essence, we are saying the same as the Bible. “Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9: 6). “The murderer shall surely be put to death” (Num. 35: 16). There are other crimes also mentioned in the Bible that were accorded capital punishment, as well.

So what? Heck, even most Catholics in the U.S. believe in capital punishment (though they aren’t supposed to.)

The problem is that during the “Mormon Reformation” of the 1850’s, Brigham Young and some of his associates got a little extreme in their rhetoric about Blood Atonement, in order to get people to mend their ways. However, Brigham also went on to say that such things did not apply under the present government of the world. Of course, you never see those mitigating statements mentioned in the trashy anti-Mormon literature that people like Petra read. Here is one of those mitigating statements:

“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.
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.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:219-220.

If you want to read some more reliable information on “Blood Atonement,” and Petra’s buddies, the Danites, see the following links:

fairlds.org/apol/ai048.html

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Danites.shtml

BDawg

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

So what? Heck, even most Catholics in the U.S. believe in capital punishment (though they aren’t supposed to.)

Who says Catholics aren’t supposed to believe in capital punishment? The Church acknowledges the state’s right to execute prisoners that pose a significant danger to themselves and society. However, The Church has said that those people are few.

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

The quotations posted about “blood atonement” are fine with me. Essentially, they are saying that, IN THEORY, Mormons believe in capital punishment for certain crimes (i.e., murder and some other crimes mentioned in the Law of Moses and even before that), and if one is guilty of such a crime, he ought to submit to that punishment.

In essence, we are saying the same as the Bible. “Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9: 6). “The murderer shall surely be put to death” (Num. 35: 16). There are other crimes also mentioned in the Bible that were accorded capital punishment, as well.

So what? Heck, even most Catholics in the U.S. believe in capital punishment (though they aren’t supposed to.)

The problem is that during the “Mormon Reformation” of the 1850’s, Brigham Young and some of his associates got a little extreme in their rhetoric about Blood Atonement, in order to get people to mend their ways. However, Brigham also went on to say that such things did not apply under the present government of the world. Of course, you never see those mitigating statements mentioned in the trashy anti-Mormon literature that people like Petra read. Here is one of those mitigating statements:

If you want to read some more reliable information on “Blood Atonement,” and Petra’s buddies, the Danites, see the following links:

fairlds.org/apol/ai048.html

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Danites.shtml

BDawg

 

[petra]

BDawg:

The quotations posted about “blood atonement” are fine with me. Essentially, they are saying that, IN THEORY, Mormons believe in capital punishment for certain crimes (i.e., murder and some other crimes mentioned in the Law of Moses and even before that), and if one is guilty of such a crime, he ought to submit to that punishment.

In essence, we are saying the same as the Bible. “Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9: 6). “The murderer shall surely be put to death” (Num. 35: 16). There are other crimes also mentioned in the Bible that were accorded capital punishment, as well.

So what? Heck, even most Catholics in the U.S. believe in capital punishment (though they aren’t supposed to.)

The problem is that during the “Mormon Reformation” of the 1850’s, Brigham Young and some of his associates got a little extreme in their rhetoric about Blood Atonement, in order to get people to mend their ways. However, Brigham also went on to say that such things did not apply under the present government of the world. Of course, you never see those mitigating statements mentioned in the trashy anti-Mormon literature that people like Petra read. Here is one of those mitigating statements:

If you want to read some more reliable information on “Blood Atonement,” and Petra’s buddies, the Danites, see the following links:

fairlds.org/apol/ai048.html

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Danites.shtml

BDawg

The issue here is not whether the Mormon Church is in favor of capital punishment. Nor is the method of particular importance except that it is derived from a theological doctrine. It is the doctrine that is of interest to me.

This doctrine, which McConkie affirmed in 1979 and contradicts himself in the same year, has some theological implications and says that Christ’s atonement is not efficacious for some sins. In certain cases, the only way for one to have such a sin atoned for is for one to shed his/her own blood.

There many examples in which Mormon doctrine diminishes Christ and this is just one of them. First His diety is stripped of Him, then He is rendered impotent.

Regarding the Danites, you have me confused with someone else. I didn’t make mention of that.

Peace to you.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Sorry everybody and Petra,
I did lose it, I read the letter from McConkie and just thought that explained it pretty clearly, then Petra came back with all this stuff that seemed to me just picking an argument. We have had posts before that have gone round and round about Doctrine, what is and what isn’t. My non- Mormon sister was reading the book about the boys that murdered their sister-in-law and her baby, but when I picked it up, I realized that it wasn’t about Mormons, but was made to look like it was. They were members of a polygamist group in Utah that had nothing to do with the church. Also, in the early days of settling the West, the law was established by the settlers and if a person committed murder, he paid with his own life. We still believe in capital punishment. It is pretty hard to repent from murder, as you can not make ammends by bringing back a life.

Under The Banner of Heaven, does not explain that these men were not Mormons, and that is very harmful to the church.

Thank you for rescuing me from myself Bdawg and tkdnick, I had a very difficult day and should not be writing. Then I had a discussion with my husband about the Eucharist and I read the site he had me look up that was in the newspaper. www.kofc.org/cis
Please forgive me for my angry post. I have to learn to pause and digest everything before I react. I obviously do not know enough about history and scripture to be answering some of these questions. I mostly speak from the heart and it gets me in lots of trouble.
BJ

 

[petra]

BJ Colbert:

Sorry everybody and Petra,
I did lose it, I read the letter from McConkie and just thought that explained it pretty clearly, then Petra came back with all this stuff that seemed to me just picking an argument. We have had posts before that have gone round and round about Doctrine, what is and what isn’t. My non- Mormon sister was reading the book about the boys that murdered their sister-in-law and her baby, but when I picked it up, I realized that it wasn’t about Mormons, but was made to look like it was. They were members of a polygamist group in Utah that had nothing to do with the church. Also, in the early days of settling the West, the law was established by the settlers and if a person committed murder, he paid with his own life. We still believe in capital punishment. It is pretty hard to repent from murder, as you can not make ammends by bringing back a life.

Under The Banner of Heaven, does not explain that these men were not Mormons, and that is very harmful to the church.

Thank you for rescuing me from myself Bdawg and tkdnick, I had a very difficult day and should not be writing. Then I had a discussion with my husband about the Eucharist and I read the site he had me look up that was in the newspaper. www.kofc.org/cis
Please forgive me for my angry post. I have to learn to pause and digest everything before I react. I obviously do not know enough about history and scripture to be answering some of these questions. I mostly speak from the heart and it gets me in lots of trouble.
BJ

No problem, BJ. I hope you have a restful evening and feel better in the morning. God bless!

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

My non- Mormon sister was reading the book about the boys that murdered their sister-in-law and her baby, but when I picked it up, I realized that it wasn’t about Mormons, but was made to look like it was. They were members of a polygamist group in Utah that had nothing to do with the church…

Under The Banner of Heaven, does not explain that these men were not Mormons, and that is very harmful to the church.

From what I understand of this book (and my info comes primarily from posts on this site) it is about Mormons, just not the common LDS church-type. From what I understand they are members of a fundamentalist splinter group. Either way, what they did is horrid! Though, I’m not really sure how we got on the topic of that book. I don’t really see a connection between the book and blood atonement.

Hope you had a good night!

 

[boppysbud]

BJ, I guess it depends on who you ask if these guys (fundamental, polygamists) are real Mormons or not

They say that they are the REAL Mormons and the Utah church is apostate, and has been since the manifesto on plural marriage was issued. BTW a large group of these polygs have relocated from Colorado City to a small town near me in Texas (eldorado). They have in the space of a year and a half built a temple. They are very much a closed community, I guess they even have their food shipped in since they never appear in Eldorado where they would definately be noticed.

The only reason people know about the temple is from pictures taken from low flying helicopters. The entire compound is enclosed with barbed wire, the two gates are guarded and locked with heavy padlocks. Scarey folks.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Yup, it depends who you ask, and it also depends on who you would rather believe. Same thing with Catholics, do you believe the 1.1 Billion, or the ones who splintered off and started their own churches. If you are one of them then you are a protestant.
As a Mormon, I tend to go with the 12 million, not the few unbelievers who started their own church. I belong to the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and the ones you are talking about do not. Simple to me, but to you maybe not so simple.
You can believe whatever you wish to believe and that’s OK.
BJ

 

[boppysbud]

BJ, Don’t worry I too think that the Utah Church as they are called by other “Mormons” is the real Mormon church too.

I just like to make people think a little.

On another site where I frequently post, which has seperate sections for Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists I asked in the SDA section how they know that Ellen White is a prophet whose writtings are the “inspired word of God”, but not Joseph Smith who also claims to be a prophet.

Then I went to the Mormon part of the site and asked them how they know Joseph Smith was an inspired prophet, but not Ellen White, I got no answers from either group.

I think the answer is faith, they each have faith in their respective prophets and no “proof” for either.

BTW, I am very much afraid of the Eldorado group of fundamentalists, I think they are a cult just like the Waco Koresh cult was. Their secrecy, their enclosed by barbed wire compound. God knows what an arsenal they have stored in there. They were predicting apochalypse on March 20th.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

boppysbud:

BJ, Don’t worry I too think that the Utah Church as they are called by other “Mormons” is the real Mormon church too.

I just like to make people think a little.

On another site where I frequently post, which has seperate sections for Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists I asked in the SDA section how they know that Ellen White is a prophet whose writtings are the “inspired word of God”, but not Joseph Smith who also claims to be a prophet.

Then I went to the Mormon part of the site and asked them how they know Joseph Smith was an inspired prophet, but not Ellen White, I got no answers from either group.

I think the answer is faith, they each have faith in their respective prophets and no “proof” for either.

BTW, I am very much afraid of the Eldorado group of fundamentalists, I think they are a cult just like the Waco Koresh cult was. Their secrecy, their enclosed by barbed wire compound. God knows what an arsenal they have stored in there. They were predicting apochalypse on March 20th.

Faith is believing in something you have not seen for yourself, and I think you are right about that being the reason we all believe in the things we believe. I believe in God, even though I have never seen Him. I take the testimony of others passed down in the Holy Scriptures that He exists. I know it is true that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. I believe in Him with all my heart and without a shadow of doubt, the Holy Spirit bears witness to me that it is true. The same spirit testifies to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet in these latter days sent to restore the gospel in it’s original form, as it was established by Jesus Christ.

I think you have a right to be afraid, the leaders are very secretive and controlling. The poor women and children are brainwashed and born into this (what I consider) cult. I can’t see why the Government does not go in and rescue these women and children.
Maybe it is because of the disaster that Waco turned out to be.
There was an article in our local paper that told about the boys being kicked out on their own without having any way to support themselves at about age 16, because they pose a threat to the leaders, who want the women to themselves. That is what I call sick.
Is there local government that will do anything? I drove by Colorado City once on the border of Arizona/ Utah and there was not a soul in sight. They also did not have any windows facing the highway. Very strange people. I think our government should go in and arrest the men in charge, so the children will not have to be subjected to this bazare cult, but then I don’t know the whys and why nots of any of this. If an individual did what they do, they would be arrested immediately. Just very sad and difficult to understand why something can’t be done.

BJ

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

Faith is believing in something you have not seen for yourself, and I think you are right about that being the reason we all believe in the things we believe. I believe in God, even though I have never seen Him. I take the testimony of others passed down in the Holy Scriptures that He exists. I know it is true that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. I believe in Him with all my heart and without a shadow of doubt, the Holy Spirit bears witness to me that it is true. The same spirit testifies to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet in these latter days sent to restore the gospel in it’s original form, as it was established by Jesus Christ.

I’m sure those fundamentalist splinter groups would say the exact same thing about what they believe in.