LDS and Blood Atonement

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do remember a lesson in the Elders’ Quorum Handbook (circa 1990) that specifically stated that it was possible for a person to commit a sin so grievous that it would put him outside of the reach of Christ’s atonement. (For the Catholics in the audience of this Catholic website, this would be an official publication vetted and approved by the leadership of the LDS church to be used for the instruction of the priesthood.)

I thought that this posed limitations on the previously-described omnipotent portion of the definition of God and created a strange loop-hole to the otherwise held “universal atonement,” which supposedly even included other planets according to my BYU religion professor (son of the then President of the Quorum of the Twelve and eventual Prophet).

As instructor, I asked asked the counsel of the Elders’ Quorum presidency and we decided to overlook that lesson when it came into rotation.

However, it was the first lesson taught when the Elders’ Quorum presidency was released when the president moved. It had horrendous effects on the quorum. The new president went so far as to question why I had not taught the lesson in its season (I had been released when the presidency was dissolved) and after I explained my doctrinal grounds, the former first-counsellor added that I had been acting under the instruction of the previous president.
 
It’s funny that I watched a special on The History Channel last night (May 28, 2005, 11pm ET) which discussed the Mormon doctrine of “blood atonement.”

The discussion came about regarding the “Mountain Meadow Massacre” of 1857, where over a hundred emigrants were slaughtered while travelling through Utah to California.

Much evidence was given that “Prophet” Brigham Young was involved in the entire plot, and evidence also showed that the only person convicted of the murders - John Lee - did so in part due to the Mormon teaching of 'blood atonement."

Several quotes were given from Brigham Young and other Mormons regarding this teaching. Of course, most LDS theologians who were interviewed for the show downplayed the doctrine, describing it as being “allegorical” or “symbolic” in nature.

A brief description of the show can be found at The History Channel website under INVESTIGATING HISTORY: MOUNTAIN MASSACRE: historychannel.com/global/listings/listings_weekly.jsp?fromYear=2005&fromMonth=4&fromDate=22&NetwCode=THC&timezone=1&View=Weekly&&fromTime=21

You can also find a ton of info on it by googling.

In Manibus Dei,
  • Mike M.
 
Ooh, the Mountain Meadows Massacre?! That’s bound to bring the bretheren out of the woodwork. The successful Texas murder defense comes to mind, “The sucker deserved to die.”

I’m a little perplexed why there are LDS lurkers on a Catholic site. I certainly don’t haunt theirs. Shucks, according to the LDS mythology, they’re not even Protestant - they were never an offshoot of the Catholic church. Frankly, the tone of some LDS posts regarding their baptism of our popes after their deaths were insensitive, childish and rude.
 
TomK, "I’m a little perplexed why there are LDS lurkers on a Catholic site."

Um… well… this IS the “Non-Catholic Religions” portion of the website. And without a few LDS popping in occasionally we’d never be able to correct all the misinformation that gets posted here about our church.
 
40.png
muledog:
It’s funny that I watched a special on The History Channel last night (May 28, 2005, 11pm ET) which discussed the Mormon doctrine of “blood atonement.”

The discussion came about regarding the “Mountain Meadow Massacre” of 1857, where over a hundred emigrants were slaughtered while travelling through Utah to California.

Much evidence was given that “Prophet” Brigham Young was involved in the entire plot, and evidence also showed that the only person convicted of the murders - John Lee - did so in part due to the Mormon teaching of 'blood atonement."

Several quotes were given from Brigham Young and other Mormons regarding this teaching. Of course, most LDS theologians who were interviewed for the show downplayed the doctrine, describing it as being “allegorical” or “symbolic” in nature.

A brief description of the show can be found at The History Channel website under INVESTIGATING HISTORY: MOUNTAIN MASSACRE: historychannel.com/global/listings/listings_weekly.jsp?fromYear=2005&fromMonth=4&fromDate=22&NetwCode=THC&timezone=1&View=Weekly&&fromTime=21

You can also find a ton of info on it by googling.

In Manibus Dei,
  • Mike M.
Click to expand...
HI Mike

If the History Channel makes a pronouncement then it must be true, as they are a bastion of impartiality in all things religious.

Above I have laid out the teaching of church authorities on the doctrine as it was and still is.

Your welcome to still disagree. Most if not all LDS people that I have read on this forum don’t contribute to make converts, preach our doctrine, or refute yours, but to give a balanced view of our believes.

Thank you for you contribution

Paul
 
40.png
TomK:
Ooh, the Mountain Meadows Massacre?! That’s bound to bring the bretheren out of the woodwork. The successful Texas murder defense comes to mind, “The sucker deserved to die.”

I’m a little perplexed why there are LDS lurkers on a Catholic site. I certainly don’t haunt theirs. Shucks, according to the LDS mythology, they’re not even Protestant - they were never an offshoot of the Catholic church. Frankly, the tone of some LDS posts regarding their baptism of our popes after their deaths were insensitive, childish and rude.
Click to expand...
Hi Tom

I have no idea what the first comment is about

Well, the comments of LDS might not be welcome here, however, there are many faithful Catholics that participate on ours. I find them to be well spoken and intelligent, and they are quite welcome.

Yes according to our “mythology” we do not consider ourselves protestant. As that term referred to those who broke away from the Roman Church in protest of certain doctrinal practices. We consider ourselves a restoration Church.

Could you give me the name of the thread were you say there was childish and rude discussion.

If this is true

I apologise.

Thanks

Paul
 
Casen,

LDS history does not support your claim that blood atonement was not taught. Casen read and do not add or take away what your people are saying. Don’t try to defend your point of view, or say they mean this or that. Just listen to what they are saying. They are speaking very simply and honestly to the people they are charged to shepherd. They are teaching what they believe is true.

Brigham Young made this statement in teaching the Saints about the sins of adultery and immorality.

"Let us 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…
"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:…

Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 247

Orson Pratt, one of Brigham Youngs Apostles stated*.*

*"*The people of Utah are the only ones in this nation who have taken effectual measures…to prevent adulteries and criminal connections between the sexs, that punishment in that territory, for these crimes is death to both male and female."

The Seer, Washington City. D.C. 1854, page 223

Heber C. Kimball, member of the First Presidency under Brigham Young made this statement about adultery.

" These are my views, and the Lord knows that I believe in the principles of sanctification; and when Iam guility of seducing any man’s wife, or any women in God’s world, I say, Sever my Head From My Body."

Journal of Discourses, Vol 7, page 20

Jedediah M. Grant made this comment concerning covenant breakers.

" 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…We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed to save him…
“Do you think it would be any sin to Kill Me if I were to break my covenants? …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

Brigham Young taught:

"Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and Father and being exalted, the beaauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, 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 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?" …

Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered Mormon Tabernacle, Feb. 8, 1857, printed in the Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857.

*Heber C. Kimball stated *

*"*God designs we should be pure men, holding the oracles of God in holy and pure vessels: but when it is necessary that blood should be shed, we should be as ready to do that as to eat an apple …we will let you know that the earth can swallow you up, as it did Korah with his host; and as brother Taylor says, You May Dig Your Graves, and We Will Slay You. And You May Crawl into them."

Again history does not support you! Reread what Hyrum L Andrus, B.H. Roberts, and Gustive O. Larson say about blood atonement. They researched the people who lived in the period of Brigham Young and they found what was true for those people. That is blood atonement was taught. You don’t have to have the LDS Church to say this is true or not. The truth will come out as it has.
 
TomK, (in reference to post # 21)

What type of horrendous effects did the teaching have on the quorum? Was there denial and unbelief that some sins cannot be forgiven by the Blood of Christ?

I wonder where can a person get a copy of the lesson plan? It would be interesting to read.

Respectfully
 
Paul G:
HI Mike

If the History Channel makes a pronouncement then it must be true, as they are a bastion of impartiality in all things religious.

Above I have laid out the teaching of church authorities on the doctrine as it was and still is.

Your welcome to still disagree. Most if not all LDS people that I have read on this forum don’t contribute to make converts, preach our doctrine, or refute yours, but to give a balanced view of our believes.

Thank you for you contribution

Paul
Click to expand...
Dear Paul,

I never said that THC was always impartial, or the final authority on all-things religious. I was stating the fact that they presented a show that was based, in large part, on the historical fact that a doctrine of “blood atonement” was taught in and among LDS circles, especially in the mid- to late- 1800s. This doctrine was believes and espoused at the highest levels (Brigham Young).

I would like to thank JRR to providing much of the same documentation that was given on The History Channel.

Not all of the mormons interviewed on the show denied the doctrine of “blood atonement.” From watching this show, and then doing some follow-up research, it seems to me that Brigham Young was a somewhat vile man who had a lust for power and revenge.

In Manibus Dei,
  • Mike M.
 
40.png
muledog:
Dear Paul,

I never said that THC was always impartial, or the final authority on all-things religious. I was stating the fact that they presented a show that was based, in large part, on the historical fact that a doctrine of “blood atonement” was taught in and among LDS circles, especially in the mid- to late- 1800s. This doctrine was believes and espoused at the highest levels (Brigham Young).

I would like to thank JRR to providing much of the same documentation that was given on The History Channel.

Not all of the mormons interviewed on the show denied the doctrine of “blood atonement.” From watching this show, and then doing some follow-up research, it seems to me that Brigham Young was a somewhat vile man who had a lust for power and revenge.

In Manibus Dei,
  • Mike M.
Click to expand...
Hi Mike

I will try and follow up on JRR’s info. I haven’t seen the documentary so I really can’t comment on it. Although we have fundamental differences on the significance of the topic, I am enjoying the research.

I’m not familiar with latin, what does Manibus Dei mean?

Thanks… Paul
 
40.png
JRR:
Casen,

LDS history does not support your claim that blood atonement was not taught. Casen read and do not add or take away what your people are saying. Don’t try to defend your point of view, or say they mean this or that. Just listen to what they are saying. They are speaking very simply and honestly to the people they are charged to shepherd. They are teaching what they believe is true.

.
Click to expand...
Hi JRR

Interesting quotes I’ll have a look at the complete talks, and get back to you. However I think it is proper to stick with church authorities rather than university professors who’s words can’t be verified for context.

I have tried to get a copy of his article, but as yet have had no success. I don’t mind the use of quotes, which I’m sure you don’t have in their entirety, from church authorities because they are easily found. However in fairness, if you use something in support of you argument it would be informative to read the whole thing. However, that’s just my opinion.

Paul
 
40.png
JRR:
TomK, (in reference to post # 21)

What type of horrendous effects did the teaching have on the quorum? Was there denial and unbelief that some sins cannot be forgiven by the Blood of Christ?

I wonder where can a person get a copy of the lesson plan? It would be interesting to read.

Respectfully
Click to expand...
I’d find that interesting too

Paul
 
40.png
JRR:
TomK, (in reference to post # 21)

What type of horrendous effects did the teaching have on the quorum? Was there denial and unbelief that some sins cannot be forgiven by the Blood of Christ?

I wonder where can a person get a copy of the lesson plan? It would be interesting to read.

Respectfully
Click to expand...
I would find that interesting too.

Paul
 
Ezra Taft Benson (Prophet) presented to the LDS faithful "Fourteen fundamental In Following The Prophet.

Number six states: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture…Said Brigham Young, " I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" JOD, vol. 13 p95

Then we can take the word of Brigham Young as gospel.

In reference to rhetorical devices in past post.

“Some LDS historians have claimed that blood-atonement sermons were simply Brigham Young’s use of rhetorical devices designed to frighten wayward individuals into conformity with Latter-day Saint principles’ and to bluff anti-Mormons. Writers often describe these sermons as limited to the religious enthusiasm and frenzy of the Utah Reformation up to 1857. The first problem with such explanations is that official LDS sources show that as early as 1843 Joseph Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins.”

The Mormon Hierarchy:Extensions of Power, Vol. 2. (blood atonement pages 241-261)
 
40.png
JRR:
In 1856, Brigham Young (LDS Prophet) delivered a teaching on blood atonement to the Mormon faithful. This doctrine was based on the idea that some sins are so serious that God can only forgive them if the perpetrator spills their own blood and dies to atone for the wrong committed.

Prophet Young stated, " 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 split upon the ground, that the smoke there of might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins."

Brigham Young, September 21, 1856, in JOD, vol. 4, 53 cf. Brigham Young, March 16, 1856, JOD vol 3, 247.

Also in 1856 Prophet Brigham Young told the Saints, " There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgements of the Almight will come, sooner or later, and every man or woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants."

Brigham Young, March 16, 1856, In JOD, Vol 3, 247

Joseph Fielding Smith (LDS Prophet) wrote: “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 is to saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone-…”

Doctrines of Salvation, vol 1, pp 133-138

**Bruce R. McConkie **( Mormon Apostle?) in his book Mormon Doctrine states: " *But under 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 Lord commanding capital punishment. *

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p 92.

then if he gains forgiveness for certain grievous sins, he must “be destroyed in the flesh,” and “delivered unto the day of redemptioin saith the Lord God.” (D and C 132: 19-27,)

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966 p 93

At this present time the state of Utah does have the firing squad as a means to kill a inmate sentenced to death.

Question: Does the LDS church teach this doctrine openly to new converts to their religion?
Click to expand...
I guess after reading all the responses, I must conclude that I believe in blood atonement, because as a right wing republican I believe in Capital punisment for murder under certain circumstances. It comes down to political beliefs as well as religious beliefs. I do not believe murderers should be turned loose after several years to kill again. A few years in prison does not atone for some of the horrendous murders that are committed. I believe that putting the murderer to death is the only way to atone for some murders. If my grand daughter was raped and murdered, It would be difficult to prevent me from taking the life of the culprit. I guess to Catholics that makes me a blood thirsty lunatic, like Brigham Young.

👍 BJ
 
40.png
JRR:
The Mormon Hierarchy:Extensions of Power, Vol. 2. (blood atonement pages 241-261)
Click to expand...
Hi JRR
So what are we to make of Quinn’s book? I think this is largely a question of practicality. The Mormon Hierarchy makes too many claims and cites too many sources for any reader to double-check even a fraction of them? not to mention checking them all. Unfortunately, this is what Quinn’s book seems to require.

When half the references to Boyd K. Packer in chapter 1 are faulty in one respect or another, how much trust should we put in a whole chapter on Ezra Taft Benson, or in the topic of blood atonement?

How much time do we have to double-check everything Quinn says there? Similarly, when at least four of the conflicts or contradictions Quinn discusses in chapter 1 turn out to be imaginary, how much trust should we place in a whole chapter on “tension among the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve”. or on blood atonement?

The fundamental issue is one of trust. Can we trust Quinn to analyze carefully and fairly the issues he examines? Can we trust him to report accurately what his many sources say? Can we trust the examples he uses to support his many claims?

Can we trust the quality and objectivity of his logic in reaching his conclusions?

Based on many out right and blatant misrepresentations, I think the answer must be no to all these questions.

The sheer length and apparent documentation of the book suggest otherwise. They imply careful and impartial scholarship.

It is no wonder why the book was hailed, on superficial readings, as “magisterial,” “brilliant,” and “impeccably researched.” to quote some anti Mormon reviewers
 
JRR,
What is your fascination with this so called Blood Atonement doctrine? At the start of this thread I posted the church’s OFFICIAL stance on the subject which your weren’t interested in. In 33 years as a member of the church I have never ONCE heard it preached in a sermon or in any meeting, yet you insist that it’s our doctrine inspite of the fact that our First Presidency said it’s NOT church doctrine.

But anyway, I’ll go with your for a minute. Lets assume it was taught and is secretly taught today (even though it’s never mentioned). What’s the problem with this theoretical doctrine? The church has a history of supporting capital punishment, which is supported in both the Bible and Book of Mormon, so what’s the problem? Where are you trying to go with this?

Oh, and by the way, as I posted on another thread, God disseminates His will through prophets but since only Christ lead a perfect life, prophets are not infallible. In the Bible we find true prophets that sinned and were derelict in their duty, such as Jonah, who fled from a difficult assignment. Prophets are mortals who receive the gift of prophecy from time to time, as God directs. Not everything a prophet says or does will be inspired. LDS are not accountable to believe all that every Church leader has ever said, but only those things that have been accepted and approved by consent of the leadership bodies of the Church – just as the Biblical canon was established. Not every word the early apostles said was sacred and they even occasionally disagreed with each other over doctrinal points.

For that reason there are a lot of LDS writings that are not OFFICIAL church doctrine. Brigham Young was famous for speculating on the mysteries of God and if he said some strange things from time to time the LDS don’t have a problem with it and don’t get too hung up over it since those things have not been canonized. Joseph Smith speculated also and the Journal of Discourses is chuck full of such speculation, writen by LDS authorities for members to ponder, but it’s not canonized and never has been official church doctrine.

I would think Catholics would appreciate this concept. There are lots of strange things Popes have said over the centuries but I don’t drag them out and rub your noses in them because I assume that the popes were righteous men, inspired by God, yet also imperfect and subject to occasional mistakes.
 
As usual Catholics do not look at their own gruesome past of the Crusades, etc., but are offended by the traditional punishments of the 1800’s in the Wild Wild West. We are in a different age when the laws are different and punishments have changed. Why go back to dispute how punishment was carried out in olden days? You might as well go back to the Crusades and the torture chambers of the Catholic church. (I learned about that from the History Channel) Torture probably isn’t used now in the Catholic church, but it used to be the doctrine in the beginning of the church. Also, King Henry the 8th would not have had to murder his wives if the Pope had allowed him to divorce them. That is why he started the Church of England. He got tired of murdering in the name of the Church. I do not know this for a fact, or from the Catholic perspective, but only from the History of King Henry, and the History Channel Special on torture. They could be as misguided and twisted as any of the sources you have quoted above about Mormons and blood atonement.
Again, I ask if the Mormons did believe in blood atonement, so what? I personally believe in blood atonement as I stated above, for crimes that I do not think can be atoned for in any other manner such as the rape of a child. The Lord says that if any person molests a child it is better that a he be drowned in the depths of the ocean. That to me does not sound like God is very likely to forgive these persons. They would probably better off spilling their blood on earth and possibly gaining forgiveness of some kind on the other side. So again the question is not did Brigham Young teach blood atonement, as we know those were the laws of the land at the time. Horse thieves were also hanged, and not by Mormons, but by Catholics and other religions too. The questions is what is wrong with believing a person who commits a dreadful murder, should be punished by death to himself? Do you as Catholics believe these monsters should be let loose on society? What if your own child or mother was murdered? Would you then simply give the murderer a pat on the back and tell him Jesus died for his sins and he is forgiven, feed him a meal and send him off to kill at will? I could not look at my grandchild dead and mutilated and say to the murderer “I forgive you”. It is not that simple, he would have to pay the price of his own life, before I could forgive him. If that makes me a “vile person with a lust for power and revenge” as muledog said then I am that person.
BJ
 
BJ,

Individuals who belong to the Catholic Church have committed crimes throughout its 2000 year history. Yes portions of the Crusades were terrible. We are a sinful people. But we have hope, for we know if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That means all sins!

The Gospel (the good news) is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God’s mercy to all sinners. Jesus came to forgive all sins.

The Catholic Church trust in the wonderful Mercy of God. We remember when the angel announced to Joseph: “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” That is why we as God’s people can say this prayer:

Eternal Father, We offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your Dearly Beloved Son Our Lord Jesus Christ for the atonement of our sins and those of the whole world.

I work at a prison and have frequent contact with inmates on their deathbeds and I remind them of the “good thief” on the cross. I tell them no matter what they have done Jesus will forgive them even as He forgave the “good thief” in his last hours on this earth. All they must do is ask for His Divine Mercy.

BJ I will keep you in my prayers and ask the Holy Spirit to help you to understand the Divine Mercy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top