The doctrine of “Blood Atonement” asserts that there are certain sins for which the atonement and blood of Jesus Christ does not have the power to grant or impart forgiveness. For these sins, it is necessary that the guilty person die him or herself and shed their own blood in order to obtain forgiveness. It is not sufficient that the guilty person die just any death, but that death must include the spilling of blood on the ground, with allusion to smoke or incense raising therefrom to God as testimony of the deed. The death may either be voluntary or involuntary. If death is dealt by someone else, the act of killing is counted as righteousness for the killer as they are helping the guilty person to atone for sin and thereby achieve salvation.

The reader is invited to examine the statements of church leaders below to confirm this description of Blood Atonement and to examine the litany of sins for which Blood Atonement has been prescribed. In each case, a direct link to the source document has been provided where possible so that the reader may examine the full context of the quotation and determine it’s applicability for themself.

You will note that the method of death, when described, always allows for blood to be spilled upon the ground. Hanging, for example would not be sufficient, however beheading, cutting of the neck, spilling of the bowels, shooting would qualify. This is in harmony with the penalties that were a part of the Temple Endowment ceremony up until 1990.

Statements Confirming Blood Atonement

Like many doctrine unique to the Mormon faith, Blood Atonement can be traced back to Joseph Smith. Reed Peck was an early Mormon who was a member of the Danites. He was later disaffected from the church. He authored a manuscript which included the following account:

“He [Joseph Smith] talked of dissenters and cited us to the case of Judas, saying that Peter told him in a conversation a few days ago that himself hung Judas for betraying Christ . . .” Joseph Smith as cited in The Reed Peck Manuscript, p. 54. unconfirmed source

It is understandable that most Mormons would view this account with skepticism since Reed Peck had left the Saints and would not be considered a reliable source. Here Joseph allegedly introduced the idea that it may be considered a righteous act to kill someone in certain instances outside of traditional criteria for capital punishment. If Joseph had actually taught that the Apostles had killed Judas for betraying Christ, then a more reliable source would be needed to confirm this.

Heber C Kimball of the First Presidency provides confirmation of the death of Judas at the hands of the Apostles for breaking his covenant and betraying Christ in a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle on 13 December 1857:

“Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. It is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out. “I will suffer my bowels to be taken out before I will forfeit the covenant I have made with Him and my brethren.” Do you understand me? Judas was like salt that had lost its saving principles—good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. . . . It is so with you, ye Elders of Israel, when you forfeit your covenants. . . . I know the day is right at hand when men will forfeit their Priesthood and turn against us and against the covenants they have made, and they will be destroyed as Judas was. “ (Heber C Kimball, December 13, 1857, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp. 125-126 archive.org)

Joseph Fielding Smith, who served for years as the Church Historian with access to all the church archives confirmed the origin of Blood Atonement with the teachings of the founding Prophet of the Church:

“TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.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. . . .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. . . . 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, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City, 1954, vol. 1, pp. 133-136, archive.org)

Another account which confirms the early preaching of Blood Atonement in the Nauvoo period is a proclamation by Joseph Smith’s brother William given in 1845 stating that Brigham Young was teaching Blood Atonement—i.e., that a man might be killed to save his soul:

“. . . I heard Brigham Young say, on the stand, that he was glad that Alvine Hodge was killed, . . . And he said further that it was far better for Alvine Hodge to die, than to live any longer in sin, for that he might now possibly be redeemed in the eternal world. That his murderers had done even a deed of charity for that such a man deserved to die.” (William Smith, Warsaw Signal, October 29, 1845, sidneyrigdon.com)

The brother of the prophet again confirmed the reality of Blood Atonement in an 1893 trial testimony where he stated the following:

“I left Nauvoo in 1845 because my life was in danger if I remained there, because of my objections and protests against the doctrine of blood atonement and other new doctrines that were brought into the church. (William Smith testimony, 1893 Temple Lot Case, page 98, archive.org)

While the doctrine of Blood Atonement was not frequently discussed in public during the Nauvoo period, once the saints had relocated to Utah, the doctrine was boldly and repeated preached over the pulpit.

Brigham Young, the second President of the Church, made these statements in a sermon:

“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 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, 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. 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. You have been taught that doctrine, but you do not understand it. (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 53-54 archive.org; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, p. 235 Utah Digital Newspaperspage 3, column 3)

“Some have received the Priesthood and a knowledge of the things of God, and still they dishonor the cause of truth, commit adultery, and every other abomination beneath the heavens, and then meet you here or in the street, and deny it.These are the abominable characters that we have in our midst, and they will seek unto wizards that peep, and to star-gazers and soothsayers, because they have no faith in the holy Priesthood, and then when they meet us, they want to be called Saints.The same characters will get drunk and wallow in the mire and filth, and yet they call themselves Saints, and seem to glory in their conduct, and they pride themselves in their greatness and in their abominations.They are the old hardened sinners, and are almost—if not altogether—past improvement, and are full of hell, and my prayer is that God’s indignation may rest upon them from the crown of their heads to the soles of their feet.I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President 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 blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye.You may think that I am not teaching you Bible doctrine, but what says the apostle Paul? I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. 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. “ (2nd Counselor in the First Presidency, Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 49-50, archive.org)

“. . . 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 have their own blood shed to atone for their sins . . . (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, 1958 ed., p. 87, unavailable online)

“. . . what is needful for the salvation of the soul where one’s sins place him beyond the reach of vicarious means of salvation—then it is the shedding of the sinners own blood that must here be referred to.” (Assistant Church Historian, B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, by B. H. Roberts, 1965 ed., vol. 4, p. 129, also published in Americana Magazine, 1913, pg. 467 archive.org)

“The concept here voiced, known more popularly as the doctrine of blood atonement, laid the foundation for the establishment of capital punishment in Utah for murder. Its basis is theological, asserting that there are certain crimes which the atonement of Christ will not cover, . . . the individual himself must pay the debt either here or hereafter. Hence, in some cases it was deemed proper to take the life of such persons through the shedding of their blood, that mercy might have claim upon them in the day of redemption.

(Joseph Smith and World Government, by Hyrum L. Andrus, Salt Lake City, 1963, p. 107, archive.org, Footnote 50)

“To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his step-daughter by a bishop’s court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the Reformation.

(Gustive O. Larson, Professor of Church History at the Brigham Young University, Utah Historical Quarterly, January 1958, p. 62, n. 39,archive.org)

What Crimes Required Blood Atonement?

With the theological framework in place which justifies the shedding of the blood of guilty individuals in order to atone for sin which is not covered by Christ’s atonement, the next question is what sins, exactly, were taught as those for which Blood Atonement may be applied. Keep in mind that the shedding of innocent blood was specifically forbidden. Because of this, any time a leader alludes to killing or shedding of blood of an individual who is guilty of a particular sin, then the implication is that this is a sin for which Blood Atonement is justified.

Several sins were identified by early church leaders for which killing of the guilty party was considered a justified remedy under the auspices of Blood Atonement.

Murder

“In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. I replied, I was 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 thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so. (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 5, p. 296, archive.org)

The Mormon people apparently took Joseph Smith very serious when he talked of beheading for they incorporated this into their laws in Utah:

“In accordance with the law of Utah, the doomed man was given his choice of three methods of execution—hanging, shooting or beheading.”

(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee”, Introduction, p. xix view original)

Utah is the only US state or territory which has ever allowed beheading as a form of execution.

“Even the law of territorial Utah, as we have explained in the Introduction, allowed John D. Lee, or any other man condemned to death, toelect to be beheaded as a means of saving his immortal soul by the shedding of his blood.”

(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee”, Introduction, p.129view original)

Brigham Young and George Q Cannon wrote about this law in an 1879 newspaper article saying:

“The extreme penalty was inflicted today upon Wallace Wilkerson who unlawfully shed the blood of a fellow creature. He shot William Baxter at Tintic, June 11th, 1877, in a dispute over a game of cards. He has atoned for that deed as far as it is possible so to do by the pouring out of his own blood. Thus the divine law has been executed and human law honored. The culprit preferred shooting to hanging or decapitation. This was his privilege under our local statutes… The dignity of the law, the demands of justice and the protection of the Commonwealth, can just as well be subserved by sending a bullet into a murderer’s breast as by choking the life out of him with the rope. And the divine law prescribes blood shedding, the smoke from the crimson life-stream ascending in token of atonement; but “cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.”” (“The Death Penalty for Murder”. Deseret Evening News (George Q. Cannon, Brigham Young). May 16, 1879. p. 2. google.com)

“. . . the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death.” (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, vol. 1, p. 136, archive.org)

“As a mode of capital punishment, hanging or execution on a gallows does not comply with the law of blood atonement, for the blood is not shed.” (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, 1958 ed., p. 314, unavailable online)

Japanese District and Family Court Judge Hiroshige Takasawa, after more than a year of research studies of Utah’s “unique” form of capital punishment, has found “evidence that present laws stem from early Mormon philosophy of blood atonement.” Judge Takasawa, a visiting Fulbright research scholar in criminology at the University of Utah, sits on the bench of the Nagoya District Court and Family Court at Toyohashi, Japan. The judge said that through extensive study of the first days of the Mormon pioneers he has found “a possible relationship” between current death sentences and “early days of violence vs. violence.” Beginning with the premise, “There must be a background to Utah’s unique form of capital punishment—a system which affords a convicted person a choice of death by hanging or shooting,” Judge Takasawa sought information and materials from state law enforcement agencies and penal officials. (Salt Lake Tribune, January 28, 1968, p. 4C, unavailable online)

Adultery and Immorality

“Modern governments do not take the life of the adulterer, and some of them have done away with the supreme penalty where murder is involved—all of which is further evidence of the direful apostacy that prevails among the peoples who call themselves Christians.” (Apostle Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958 ed., p. 104, unavailable online)

“Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you wouldbe 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; . . .” (President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247, archive.org)

“The people of Utah are the only ones in this nation who have taken effectual measures . . . to prevent adulteries and criminal connections between the sexes. The punishment in that territory, for these crimes is DEATH TO BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.” (All Caps in original, Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, Washington City, D.C., 1854, p. 223, archive.org)

“. . . the citizens of that Territory think more of their virtue than they do of their lives. They know, that if they have any connections out of the marriage covenant, they not only forfeit their lives by the law of God, but they forfeit their salvation also.” (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, Washington City, D.C., 1854., p. 42, archive.org)

“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.” (1st Presidency member Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 20, archive.org)

“But they cannot whore it here; for, gentlemen, if there is anything of that kind, we will slay both men and women. We will do it, as the Lord liveth—we will slay such characters. Now, which would be the most worthy to be slain—the woman that had had her endowments and made certain covenants before God, or the man that knew nothing about it? The woman, of course.” (1st Presidency member Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 38, archive.org)

“. . . our females . . . are not unclean, for we wipe all unclean ones from our midst: we not only wipe them from our streets, butwe wipe them out of existence…so help me God, while I live, I will lend my hand to wipe such persons out: and I know this people will.” (1st Presidency member Heber C Kimball, Millennial Star, vol. 16, p. 739, archive.org; also printed in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 19,archive.org)

“The principle, the only one that beats and throbs through the heart of the entire inhabitants of this Territory, is simply this: The man who seduces his neighbors wife must die, and her nearest relative must kill him!“ (Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 97, archive.org)

“It is not so much polygamy that they are opposed to, but they hate this people because they strive to be pure, and will not believe in whoredom and adultery, but declare death to the man who is found guilty of those crimes.“ ( President Brigham Young, May 22, 1859, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 146, archive.org)

“Adultery was both a major sin and a capital offense in Mormon eyes.”

(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee”, footnote 135 on page 128, hathitrust.org)

“Lee’s solemn warning related to the doctrine of blood atonement. Many early Mormons believed that the sin of adultery was so grievous that only the shedding of the sinner’s blood could atone for it. There are many references to the seriousness of this offense. Esias Edwards, for example, tells in his diary how his son-in-law, Frank Sadler, was forced to flee to save his life after a second transgression.”

(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee” footnote 101 on pages 332-333 of page 128, hathitrust.org)

Stealing

“President Joseph Smith said, I think it best to continue this subject. I want the elders to make honorable proclamation abroad concerning what the feelings of the first presidency is, for stealing has never been tolerated by them. I despise a thief above ground.“ (Prophet Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 4, pp. 183-184, archive.org)

“President Young then spoke against thieving, . . . said he, I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut; some of you may say, if that is your feelings Brigham, we’ll lay you aside sometime, well, do it if you can; I would rather die by the hands of the meanest of all men, false brethren, than to live among thieves.” (History of the Church, vol. 7, p. 597, archive.org)

“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. I know this appears hard, and throws a cold chill over our revered traditions received by early education. I had a great many such feelings to contend with myself, and was as much of a sectarian in my notions as any other man, and as mild, perhaps, in my natural disposition, but I have trained myself to measure things by the line of justice, to estimate them by the rule of equity and truth, and not by the false traditions of the fathers, or the sympathies of the natural mind. If you will cause all those whom you know to be thieves, to be placed in a line before the mouth of one of our largest cannon, well loaded with chain shot, I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not. I would consider it just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of his sins. That is a short discourse on thieves, I acknowledge, but I tell you the truth as it is in my heart. “ (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 108-109, archive.org)

“It would have a tendency to place a terror on those who leave these parts, that may prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or shot down before the public . . . I believe it to be pleasing in the sight of heaven to sanctify ourselves and put these things from our midst.” (Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 73, archive.org)

Using the Name of the Lord in Vain

“. . . I tell you the time is coming when that man uses the name of the Lord is used the penalty will be affixed and immediately beexecuted on the spot . . . “ (Brigham Young as quoted in the journal of LDS diarist Hosea Stout; On the Mormon Frontier, The Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 1, p. 76,BOAP.org)

Not Receivin g the Gospel

“The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall ask, “Are you for God?” and if you are not heartily on the Lord’s side, you will be hewn down.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 226, archive.org)

Marriage to African

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard 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.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110, archive.org)

Covenant Breaking

When Mormons go through the Temple and are married and receive their endowment, they make a series of covenants with God. Mormons consider these to be very sacred and secret and there is an injunction against them talking about it outside the temple. When the endowment ceremony was created and for over a century until 1990, there was a penalty accompanying each covenant in which the member pantomimed a method of death that they would be subject to if they violated that covenant. This should be kept in mind when reviewing the following quotes as well as the quotes regarding adultery, since marriage is also a form of temple covenant to faithful Mormons.

“I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President 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 blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye. . . . I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. 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. . . .We have been trying long enough with this people, and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word, but in deed. . . .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. “ (2nd Counselor in the First Presidency, Jedediah M. Grant, Deseret News, vol. 6, p. 235, reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 49-51, archive.org)

“What disposition ought the people of God to make of covenant breakers . . . What does the Apostle say? He says they are worthy of death. . . .What! do you believe that people would do right, and keep the law of God, by actually putting to death the transgressors? Putting to death transgressors would exibit the law of God, no difference by whom it was done; that is my opinion.You talk of the doings of different governments, the United States if you please. . . . Do traitors to that government forfeit their lives? . . . But people will look into books of theology, and argue that the people of God have a right to try people for fellowship, but they have no right to try them on property or life. That makes the devil laugh, saying, I have got them on a hook now; . . .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 . . . certain sins cannot be atoned for . . . 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 . . . We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him. . . .. . . 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? . . . 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.” (2nd Counselor in the First Presidency, Jedediah M. Grant, Deseret News, July 27, 1854)

“. . . for if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be d*mned, and that too according to their covenants” (1st Counselor in First Presidency, Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 375, archive.org).

Apostasy

“I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife. (Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices, generally, “go it, go it.”) If you say it is right, raise your hands. (All hands up.) Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 83, archive.org)

“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 beauty 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 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 . . . I have known a great many men who 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 forbids this principle’s being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will been 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.” (Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857, printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 219-220, archive.org)

“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.“ (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp. 34-35, archive.org)

John D. Lee “had seen many cases, among them that of Nephi Stewart, wherein a man was ruined financially and his life endangered by a public announcement that he had been cut off the Church”

(LDS Historian Juanita Brooks, “John Doyle Lee: zealot, pioneer, builder, scapegoat”, p. 293 hathitrust.org).

Lying

“I preached on the condition of the Camp of Israel—. . . and warned those who lied and stole and followed Israel that they would have their heads cut off, for that was the law of God and it should be executed.” (Brigham Young, “Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” December 20, 1846, typed copy, google.com)

Counterfeiting

“We investigated several orders purporting to be drawn by J. Allen, Lieut. Col., signed by James Pollick; which I requested should be burned. I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing and counterfeiting their throats should be cut.” (Brigham Young, “Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” February 24, 1847, typed copy google.com)

Condemning Joseph Smith or Approving of His Death

“A man may live here with us and worship what God he pleases or none at all, but he must not blaspheme the God of Israel or d*mn old Joe Smith or his religion, for we will salt him down in the lake.” (Brigham Young as quoted by Norton Jacob; Norton Jacob Diary, Archives, Church History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. full sermon)

“About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant. . . . Bro. Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met a man who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible feeling as he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, “Just as I have always looked upon it—that it was a d—d cold-blooded murder.” The cloud immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open pocket knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this man given his approval to that murder of the prophets he would have immediately struck him to the heart.“ (Joseph F. Smith as recorded in the journal of Abraham H. Cannon, “Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon,” December 6, 1889, pp. 205-206,archive.org)

“I will tell you how much I love those characters. If they had any respect to their own welfare, they would come forth and say, whether Joseph Smith was a Prophet or not, “We shed his blood, and now let us atone for it;” and they would be willing to have their heads chopped off, that their blood might run upon the ground, and the smoke of it rise before the Lord as an incense for their sins. I lovethem that much.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 186, archive.org)

If you managed to read through all the above references and still believe that Blood Atonement was just a result of a couple of leaders choosing an exaggerated metaphor or using unnecessarily dramatic poetic language – not to be taken literally or seriously, then you would be a remarkable person indeed.

Blood Atonement and the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Much has been said about whether or not Brigham Young was aware of, ordered, or approved of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Those considerations pale in significance compared to the impact of the Blood Atonement doctrine. Why do I say this? Well, imagine that your current stake president tells you that it is God’s will that you both go and kidnap and kill a certain person who has recently left the church and been vocal about criticisng the church and its leaders – would you do it? Of course not! This is because you have been taught that murder is wrong and that there is no justification which would come from God in such a manner. You would reject the instructions and authority of your Stake President and would likely turn them into both church and legal authorities to make sure that no harm comes to anyone else. The men who were responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre did not have this same doctrinal foundation. They had been taught all of the above things about how murder may be justified and considered an act of charity when applied to those who are guilty.

It is only because of this doctrine of Blood Atonement, which originated with Joseph Smith and was magnified by Brigham Young, that the members complied when the instructions from the Stake President and other leaders came down that the members of the Fancher party were to be killed.

In the end, it is not as important if Brigham Young had issued the order, because he had already prepared the minds of the saints to accept and execute such an atrocity and to consider it righteousness for doing so.

A Common Modern Take on Blood Atonement

There is a perspective that I originally held when encountering superficial information about Blood Atonement as a believing Mormon who was not aware of the facts. I have seen it frequently held by other Mormons that I speak with. This is the idea that Blood Atonement is true doctrine, but may only be applied to cases of murder.

The challenging issue with this perspective is that it is in violation of Mormon Scripture itself.

“Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.”

(Alma 34:11-14, lds.org)

Note in this scripture that there is no caveat carved out for the sin of murder or allusion to the sacrifice of the Son of God being short of infinite with exceptions in cases of murder. It specifically says that the last sacrifice of the Son of God would put a “stop to the shedding of blood”.

Mormons have a powerful need to hold onto the idea of there being some correct application of Blood Atonement, however. Letting go of Blood Atonement carries some difficult implications for a faithful Mormon. You would then have to accept that those men taught as the Law of God something which is completely repugnant to the concept of salvation by the grace of Christ. This would then reveal them to be anything but true men of God. Then you have to deal with the implications of that conclusion.

It is much easier to simply not examine the reality of Church History in this regard and the Church Essay is very instrumental in providing just enough information and superficial rationalization to put members minds at ease and convince them that they have examined the issue and are at peace with it and the church.

Conclusion

With this recent essay, the church has acknowledged several challenging issues which it had previously denied or hidden from the view of its members. Now that you are able to read this material from the church itself, you must decide what to do with this new information. Each person will come to their own conclusions.

This is my personal take on it, I invite you to share yours in the comments below: