Blood atonement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religious concept of blood atonement has different meanings depending on the context of how the term is used. Its symbolism with the law of sacrifice is implied in the Old Testament, Exodus 30:10 and Leviticus 17:11, and with Christ through His suffering and death is stated in the New Testament, Hebrews 9:22 & 13:12 and 1 John 1:7, also Revelation 1:5.

In Mormonism, many passages in the Book of Mormon explain the need for the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ to atone for the sins of the world. For example, in Alma 34:11-17 is written:

"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....

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. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption."

Contents

[edit] "Blood atonement" as defined by critics of Mormonism

Another use of the term blood atonement is attributed to a controversial understanding of the words of some early Latter-day Saint ("LDS") leaders, particularly Brigham Young, that the crime of premeditated murder by one with full gospel knowledge was not atoned for fully by the suffering of Jesus Christ, and that this is why the prophet Noah was commanded, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Genesis 9:6) Young was quoted as saying that murderers should voluntarily "have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins."[1]

The misunderstood concept that was cited as "blood atonement" of murderers was repudiated as never having been an official Church doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"). This concept still has some adherents by other religious groups. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement saying that it neither supports nor opposes capital punishment, and that it is a matter to be decided entirely by civil law.[1]

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

[edit] Mormon interpretation of Christ’s atonement

[edit] Physical and spiritual aspects of the atonement of Jesus Christ

The LDS Topical Guide to the church's standard scriptural works has an entry for "Blood Atonement," which states: "see Jesus Christ, Atonement through."[2] Mormon doctrine views the atonement of Jesus Christ as having both a physical and a spiritual aspect.

  1. The atonement of Jesus Christ unconditionally saves everyone from physical death, as accomplished by Christ’s death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection. This reverses the death brought into the world through Adam’s transgression. The LDS church teaches that this is a gift given to all men unconditionally: That all men and women will be resurrected.[3]
  2. The atonement of Jesus Christ saves a person from spiritual death, which is described as a separation from God’s presence, if that individual repents of their sins and keeps God’s commandments. It is this second aspect of Christ’s atonement that is associated with the doctrine of “blood atonement,” which claims that man has the ability to commit some sins “so heinous that Christ's sacrifice is unavailing, but the offender himself may partially atone for his sin by sacrificing his life in a way which literally sheds his blood. The spilling of blood is required because blood is viewed as possessing symbolic religious significance.”[4]

[edit] The “unpardonable sin” as defined by Joseph Smith

Latter-day Saints view the "unpardonable sin" as a denial of the Holy Ghost after an individual has received a perfect knowledge of God's existence. It is generally accepted that it is not even possible for members to commit such a sin, since they do not posess this level of knowledge. Joseph Smith described this “unpardonable sin” during the King Follett Discourse on April 7, 1844.

All sins, and all blasphemies, and every transgression, except one, that man can be guilty of, may be forgiven; and there is a salvation for all men, either in this world or the world to come, who have not committed the unpardonable sin...What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him.[5]

[edit] Statements in the nineteenth century

[edit] Mormon reformation of the 1850s

The statements by early church leaders from which the doctrine of “blood atonement” is derived occurred during a period in the history of the Church known as the Mormon Reformation of the 1850s. During this period, church leaders were sent to preach to the people in Utah and surrounding Mormon communities in order to inspire them to reject sin and turn once again towards spiritual things. A number of strongly worded sermons were recorded in which church members were chastised and encouraged to turn back to the proper path. A symbol of this recommitment was for each member to be rebaptized in order to renew their baptismal covenants. Some of the strongest sermons were delivered by Brigham Young and his second counselor Jedediah M. Grant. Grant's no-nonsense speeches and delivery style earned him the nickname "Brigham's Sledgehammer."

[edit] Statements made by Brigham Young

The LDS Church teaches that Jesus atoned for the sins of all who repent, except for those who have committed "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". Latter-day Saints believe that one of the conditions of repentance is to restore, to the extent possible, what was lost (similar to the Unification Church concept of indemnity).

On September 21, 1856, Brigham Young took that idea which was introduced by Willard Richards and George A. Smith, further, and stated:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins, and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world ... I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day."[6]

On February 8, 1857, Young taught:

"Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is taken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin he knows will deprive him of the exaltation he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but would say, 'shed my blood that I might be saved and exalted with the Gods?' All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?...I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force."[7]

LDS General Authority B.H. Roberts responded to Young’s statements, stating:

“The doctrine of "blood atonement," then, is based upon the scriptural laws considered in the foregoing paragraphs. The only point at which complaint may be justly laid in the teaching of the "Reformation" period is in the unfortunate implication that the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or individuals in that church, may execute this law of retribution. Fortunately, however, the suggestions seemingly made in the overzealous words of some of these leading elders were never acted upon. The church never incorporated them into her polity. Indeed, it would have been a violation of divine instruction given in the New Dispensation had the church attempted to establish such procedure. As early as 1831 the law of the Lord was given to the church as follows: "And now, behold, I speak unto the church: Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.”[8]

[edit] Statements by Jedediah M. Grant

On September 21, 1856 (the same day as Young's sermon), second counselor Jedediah M. Grant stated:

“I say, there are men and women that I would advise to got to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye. 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. Talk about old clay; I would rather have clay from a new bank than some that we have had clogging the wheels for the last nineteen years. They are a perfect nuisance, and I want them cut off, and the sooner it is done the better... 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. These are my feelings, and may God fulfil them.”[9]

[edit] Mountain Meadows massacre

The concept of "blood atonement" was claimed to have played a role in the the Mountain Meadows massacre. The massacre was a mass killing of Arkansas emigrants by Mormon militia and Paiute Indians that occurred on Friday, September 11, 1857. The massacre was led by John D. Lee, who was later executed for his role in the killings. This extreme interpretation of what was perceived to be doctrine is said to have "led to one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the Church" as an "example of blood literalism."[10]

[edit] Rumors of "Danites" practicing "blood atonement"

The remarks of Young and other church leaders led to speculation that the doctrine of "blood atonement" had been put into practice. Many of these rumors were centered around a group called the Danites. The Danites were a fraternal organization founded by Latter Day Saints in June of 1838, at Far West in Caldwell County, Missouri. The Danites operated as a vigilante group and took a central role in the events of the Mormon War. Joseph Smith eventually condemned the organization, and its leader, Sampson Avard was excommunicated from the church. Although the organization ceased to formally exist in Missouri, rumors of its continued existence as a "secret society" continued to surface over the years. Any Mormon militarism or unexplained murder was attributed to the mysterious "Danites," who were said to practice "blood atonement." Brigham Young commented on these rumors in a sermon given on April 7, 1867:

Is there war in our religion? No; neither war nor bloodshed. Yet our enemies cry out "bloodshed," and "oh, what dreadful men these Mormons are, and those Danites! how they slay and kill!" Such is all nonsense and folly in the extreme. The wicked slay the wicked, and they will lay it on the Saints.[11]

[edit] The appearance of "Danites" in fiction

These rumors were further fueled as stories of "Danites" appeared in fictional novels, such as Arthur Conan Doyle's 1887 Sherlock Holmes story: A Study in Scarlet. Doyle portrays his fictional "Danites" as Brigham Young's vigilante enforcers, reporting to the fictional "Sacred Council of Four," whose purpose is to prevent dissenters from the Church from leaving the Salt Lake Valley. The author later apologized for his portrayal of Mormons as the villians in the story. Conan Doyle's daughter said that her father "relied on anti-Mormon works by former Mormons because he believed these accounts to be factual."[12]

For late nineteenth and early twentieth century authors of fiction, "Mormon villians were a real bargain."[13] Mormons were viewed as a "bunch of mysterious people who had secreted themselves in the fortress of the vast Rocky Mountains." and gossip "was often twisted and shaped to appeal to the popular appetite for the lurid and sensational: secret rites, priestly orders, blood atonement, polygamy, and white slavery."[14]

[edit] Repudiation of allegations of the practice by the LDS church in 1889

The practice of “blood atonement” was formally denied and repudiated by the church in a statement issued in 1889:

MANIFESTO OF THE PRESIDENCY AND APOSTLES "SALT LAKE CITY, Dec. 12th, 1889. To Whom It May Concern: In consequence of gross misrepresentations of the doctrines, aims and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the 'Mormon' church, which have been promulgated for years, and have recently been revived for political purposes and to prevent all aliens, otherwise qualified, who are members of the 'Mormon' church from acquiring citizenship, we deem it proper on behalf of said church to publicly deny these calumnies and enter our protest against them. We solemnly make the following declarations, viz.: That this church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost abhorrence. That we regard the killing of a human being, except in conformity with the civil law, as a capital crime, which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the land. We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed. The revelations of God to this church make death the penalty of capital crime, and require that offenders against life and property shall be delivered up and tried by the laws of the land.’’ We declare that no bishop's or other court in this church claims or exercises civil or judicial functions, or the right to supersede, annul or modify a judgment of any civil court. Such courts, while established to regulate Christian conduct, are purely ecclesiastical, and their punitive powers go no further than the suspension or excommunication of members from church fellowship. [Signed]: WILFORD WOODRUFF, GEORGE Q. CANNON, JOSEPH F. SMITH[15]

[edit] Statements in the early twentieth century

[edit] Accusation by R. C. Evans

In 1920, Richard C. Evans, a former member of the first presidency of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who eventually left that church, wrote a book called ‘’Forty Years in the Mormon Church: Why I Left It’’. Evans accuses both the Reorganized church and the Utah based LDS church of advocating “blood atonement” and associates the alleged practice with the “Danites.” In response to denials by both churches that the practice had ever been implemented, Evans wrote:

Thus we have the President of the Reorganized Church and son of Joseph Smith admitting, as well as apologizing for the rash statements of his father and other leaders in the old church, and then we have Joseph F. Smith of the Utah church using about the same argument to excuse the language and murderous conduct of the Danites in Utah. All we care to say is reply to both of these descendants of the original prophet and organizer of the Danite Band is, that when the leading members and officers of the church for many years teach and practice, by threats and murders, ascribed to the Danite Band, then we believe the public is justified in denouncing such language and conduct, and affirming it to be the doctrine of the church.[16]

[edit] Response by Joseph Fielding Smith

Responding to Evans’s accusations regarding the alleged implementation of the practice of “blood atonement”, Joseph Fielding Smith restated the doctrine, but denied that it had ever been practiced by the church, claiming that any such accusation was a “damnable falsehood.” Smith wrote,

Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel…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 the power lies - for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail…But that the Church practices “Blood Atonement” on apostates or any others, which is preached by ministers of the ‘Reorganization’ is a damnable falsehood for which the accusers must answer. [17]

[edit] Statements in the late twentieth century

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

Man may commit certain grievous sins—according to his light and knowledge—that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his Own life to atone—so far as in his power lies—for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf.[18]

In addition, the late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie agreed with Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith that "under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins."[19]

[edit] Methods of execution in Utah

Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

[T]he founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wil[l]fully 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. This is by authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church.[20]

In addition, in his first edition of the book Mormon Doctrine, McConkie opined that because blood atonement requires the "spilling of blood upon the ground", execution by firing squad was superior to execution by hanging, which would not suffice to create a blood atonement. At the request of church president Spencer W. Kimball, this statement was deleted from McConkie's second edition of the book. Regarding this, McConkie commented:

As far as I can see there is no difference between a firing squad, an electric chair, a gas chamber, or hanging. Death is death and I would interpret the shedding of man's blood in legal executions as a figurative expression which means the taking of life. There seems to me to be no present significance as to whether an execution is by a firing squad or in some other way. I, of course, deleted my article on "hanging" from the Second Edition of Mormon Doctrine because of the reasoning here mentioned.[21]

This doctrine was seen by some commentators as one of the reasons why Utah was one of the last three U.S. states to continue the practice of execution by firing squad.[citation needed] This was discontinued on March 15, 2004. While the decision for this law was being made, the Church was consulted and stated that they had nothing against the discontinuation of this practice.

In an interesting contradiction, author Sally Denton in her book American Massacre, states that execution by firing squad was not considered a valid method for performing “blood atonement,” claiming instead that “beheading was the preferred method.” Denton recounts the execution of John D. Lee for his role in the Mountain Meadows massacre. When offered a choice of execution by hanging, firing squad or beheading, Denton claims that Lee’s “choice of execution by firing squad sent a clear signal to the faithful that he rejected a spiritual need to atone for any sins.”[22]

[edit] McConkie's repudiation of the need to practice the doctrine

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

You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early church leaders have said and written about this doctrine and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the Church today. If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is Yes. If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No. We do not believe that it is necessary for men in this day to shed their own blood to receive a remission of sins. This is said with a full awareness of what I and others have written and said on this subject in times past.[23]

[edit] Blood atonement in a theocracy

In McConkie's letter, he suggested that the doctrine could, in fact, be valid, but only in a pure theocracy. He stated:

There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins. Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses.[24]

Regarding "blood atonement" in a theocracy, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism states:

Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer´s blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.[25]

[edit] Controversy

Critics of the doctrine argue that Young's statements encouraged Mormons to murder apostates. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has repeatedly stated that it has never attempted to pass judgment on, or execute, an apostate. There were early reports of a few deaths by the above-mentioned methods for apostates or known 'ruffians' by members of the church. The rumors of an official LDS church connection have not been substantiated, although critics of the church claim to that there are parallels between blood atonement and some killings.[citation needed] Apologists have countered that such parallels are explained as unofficial and unsanctioned examples of individuals applying blood atonement as they saw fit.[citation needed]

[edit] Murders

[edit] Thomas Coleman murder

An example used by some to illustrate the alleged practice blood atonement is the 1866 murder of the former-slave, Thomas Coleman (or Colburn), who was in good standing as a member of the LDS Church. As Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn has documented, Coleman was apparently secretly courting a white Mormon woman, contrary to both territorial law and Mormon doctrine at the time.[citation needed] At one of their clandestine meetings behind the old Arsenal (on what is now Capitol Hill in Salt Lake) on December 11, Coleman was discovered by "friends" of the woman. The group of vigilantes hit Coleman with a large rock. Using his own bowie knife, his attackers slit his throat so deeply from ear to ear that he was nearly decapitated, as well as slicing open his right breast, in what some believe was a mimicry of penalties illustrated in the temple ritual. Not all of Coleman's wounds correlated with the temple ritual, however, since he was also castrated. A pre-penciled placard was then pinned to his corpse stating, "NOTICE TO ALL NIGGERS - TAKE WARNING - LEAVE WHITE WOMEN ALONE." Even though it was the middle of winter, a grave was dug and Coleman's body disposed of in less than three hours after its discovery. Less than twelve hours after that, Judge Elias Smith, first cousin of Joseph Smith, appointed George Stringham (a Mormon ruffian and vigilante with ties to Porter Rockwell, Jason Luce, and William Hickman) as the foreman of the Coroner's Jury; they briefly met and summarily dismissed the case as committed by person or persons unknown to the jury, abruptly ending all official enquiry into the bizarre murder.[26]

It has been suggested that the ritualistic elements involved in the execution of Coleman’s murder may have been in response to a public sermon made three years earlier by Brigham Young on March 3, 1863. In this sermon, Young states, “I am a human being, and I have the care of human beings. I wish to save life, and have no desire to destroy life. If I had my wish, I should entirely stop the shedding of human blood.”[27] Following this statement, however, Young makes a statement regarding interracial relations in which he continues, "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." Young continues his sermon by condemning whites for their abuse of slaves with the proclamation, “for their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.”[28]

With regard to Coleman's murder, LDS apologetics point out that the practice of "blood atonement" is said to apply to endowed Mormons who apostatized. Coleman was a member in good standing and was not endowed, suggesting that his death may have actually been the result of racism.[29]

[edit] Other murders

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

[edit] Association of “blood atonement” with sins other than apostasy

Although “blood atonement” is supposedly associated specifically with the shedding of blood of apostates, critics of Mormonism sometimes associate “blood atonement” with a much wider variety of sins such as thievery and adultery.[30] These claims are based upon certain statements of early church leaders, usually taken from the Journal of Discourses.[31] One example is a comment made by Brigham Young regarding thievery given during a sermon on May 8, 1853. Young states,

"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. That is what I expect I shall do, though never, in the days of my life, have I hurt a man with the palm of my hand. I never have hurt any person any other way except with this unruly member, my tongue."[32]

The following quote made by Heber C. Kimball in 1857 is sometimes used by critics to suggest that “blood atonement” was to be applied to apostates who break their covenants:

I have not a doubt but there will be hundreds who will leave us and go away to our enemies. I wish they would go this fall: it might relieve us from much trouble; for if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants.[33]

On March 16, 1856 Brigham Young gave a sermon in which he stated that one needed to be "careful lest in judging you will be judged." A portion of this sermon has been used to suggest that Young advocated that "blood atonement" should be applied to adulterers. The quote in its full context is:

You say, "That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God." Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged. Every man and women has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone. Again, suppose the parties are not caught in their iniquity, and it passes along unnoticed, shall I have compassion on them? Yes, I will have compassion on them, for transgressions of the nature already named, or for those of any other description. If the Lord so order it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live; and I say let them live and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do.[34]

[edit] Practice of "blood atonement" by fundamentalist groups

In modern times, the concept of "blood atonement" has been used by a number of fundamentalist splinter groups as an excuse to justify murdering those who disagree with their leaders or attempt to leave their church. These groups all claim to follow the "original" teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and claim that the LDS church has strayed from the proper path by banning these practices.[35] This practice is attributed to a tendency toward extreme "literalism" in the interpretation of early doctrines.[36]

[edit] Warren Jeffs and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Warren Jeffs, leader of the LDS splinter-group Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a polygamous sect based in Arizona and Utah, USA, has allegedly indicated his desire to implement the doctrine in his church. Former FLDS member Robert Richter reported to the Phoenix New Times that Jeffs repeatedly alluded in his sermons to blood atonement for serious sins such as murder and adultery. Richter also claims that he was asked to design a thermostat for a high temperature furnace that would be capable of destroying DNA evidence if such "atonements" were to take place.[37]

[edit] Ervil LeBaron and the Church of the Lamb of God

Ervil LeBaron, the leader and prophet of the Church of the Lamb of God, initiated a series of killings which ultimately resulted in his being sentenced to life in prison. Before his death in prison, LeBaron wrote a document which he called The Book of the New Covenants. This document listed a number of people who had been disloyal and "deserved to die." Copies of this list fell into the hands of LeBaron's followers, who proceeded to administer what they called "blood atonement" to the individuals listed.[38]

One of LeBaron's daughters, Lillian, relates an account of some of these killings in the film The God Makers II. Chynoweth relates the account of the murder of her husband, her brother-in-law and his 8-year-old daughter by her half brothers on the 27th of June, the 144th anniversary of the death of Joseph Smith Jr.. She states that their names were “on the list to be atoned for” because her father believed that they were “traitors to God’s cause.” Not explicitly named in the film, the list that Chynoweth referred to was called ‘’The Book of the New Covenants’’, and was written by Ervil LeBaron before his death in prison. The document contained a list of individuals that LeBaron believed deserved to die. Upon receipt of the list by several of his sons, they proceeded to administer this punishment.[39] At the end of Chynoweth’s interview, she states that if anything happens to her that the “Mormon” church will be responsible. Immediately following this statement, the film states that shortly after the interview, Lillian was found dead in her home of a gunshot wound. Depressed and aware that she was on the list and that other members of the Church of the Lamb of God were still looking for her, Chynoweth committed suicide.[40]

[edit] References to "blood atonement" in modern works

A number of modern authors refer to "blood atonement," usually in association with "Danites." These references often appear in works critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and rumors of "Danites" practicing some form of "blood atonement" often plays a significant role in these accounts.

In her book Leaving the Saints, Martha Beck postulates the existence of a "Danite" band "disposing" of people who opposed Brigham Young:

Brigham Young formalized and anointed these assassins as the Danites, whose mission included espionage, suppression of information, and quietly, permanently disposing of people who threatened the Mormon prophet or the Latter-day Saint organization. Again, not many Mormons know this detail of Church history, but every now and then, Utah papers record murders with uniquely Mormon flavoring (death by temple-sanctioned methods, for example), and the word that goes out on the Latter-day grapevine is Danite.[41]

Sally Denton, in her book American Massacre, claims that the Danites and "blood atonement" had a prominent role in 19th century Utah society. Denton attributes the creation of the Danites to Joseph Smith as his “secret group of loyalists” and suggests that they became “one of the most legendarily feared bands in frontier America.” According to Denton, this “consecrated, clandestine unit of divinely inspired assassins” introduced “the ritualized form of murder called blood atonement-providing the victim with eternal salvation by slitting his throat.”[42] Denton claims that “blood atonement” was one of the doctrines which Mormons held “most sacred” and that “[t]hose who dared to flee Zion were hunted down and killed.” [43] Denton implies that large numbers of such “atonements” occurred during the Mormon reformation of 1856, although “none of the crimes were ever reported in the Deseret News," and that the “bloody regime…ended with [Jedediah] Grant’s sudden death, on December 1, 1856.” [44]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Capital Punishment in Utah. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (May 27, 2003). Retrieved on March 8, 2007."The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards the question of whether and in what circumstances the state should impose capital punishment as a matter to be decided solely by the prescribed processes of civil law. We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment."
  2. ^ Topical Guide, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, page 35
  3. ^ Gardner 1979, p. 10
  4. ^ Gardner 1979, p. 10
  5. ^ Smith 1971
  6. ^ Young 1856, p. 53
  7. ^ Young 1857, p. 219
  8. ^ Roberts, Brigham H. Blood Atonement. Retrieved on March 8, 2007.
  9. ^ Grant 1856, pp. 49-51
  10. ^ Cummings 1982, p. 96
  11. ^ Young 1867, p. 30
  12. ^ Schindler, Harold (April 10, 1994). "Arthur Conan Doyle and his apology for his inaccurate portrayal of Mormons as villains in the very first Sherlock Holmes story". Salt Lake Tribune. 
  13. ^ Lambert & Cracroft 1972 "The concern of authors in the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries was not so much with conveying the facts as it was with exciting the audience. Indeed, neither the writer not the reader seemed really concerned about the facts: thrills were the sought-for commodity."
  14. ^ Lambert & Cracroft 1972
  15. ^ Roberts, Brigham H. Blood Atonement. Retrieved on March 8, 2007.
  16. ^ Evans 1920, pp. 105-6
  17. ^ Smith 1954, p. 135-6
  18. ^ Smith 1954, pp. 133-138
  19. ^ Mormon Doctrine at 92
  20. ^ Smith 1954, p. 136
  21. ^ McConkie 1978
  22. ^ Denton 2003, p. 230
  23. ^ McConkie 1978
  24. ^ McConkie 1978
  25. ^ Snow, Lowell M. Blood Atonement. Retrieved on March 8, 2007. 
  26. ^ Quinn, Extensions of Power, p. 256 and Daily Union Vedette, 15 December 1866.
  27. ^ Young 1863, p. 108
  28. ^ Young 1863, p. 110 Young also declares that he is “neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man” but that if he had to choose, he would “be against the pro-slavery side of the question.”
  29. ^ Blood Atonement. Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research.
  30. ^ Parker Parker states: "It is a common practice for anti-Mormon critics to search through the sermons of early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and pull out quotes that are shocking or disturbing to the more genteel sensibilities of Latter-day Saints. This is typically done without giving context for the quoted material."
  31. ^ McKeever
  32. ^ Young 1853, p. 108
  33. ^ Kimball, p. 375
  34. ^ Young 1856b, p. 247
  35. ^ In the film The God Makers II a man identified as "Art, Polygamist, Mormon Fundamentalist Prophet and Leader," promotes the doctrine of "blood atonement" and states that he is "trying to get the Mormons into the original doctrine that Brigham and Joseph had it set on."
  36. ^ Cummings 1982, p. 96 “[M]any of Joseph Smith’s followers have to outdo the Prophet himself in the pursuit of literalism, a trend which has led to many doctrinal distortions and ecclesiastical abuses."
  37. ^ Dougherty, John. "Wanted: Armed and Dangerous", November 10, 2005. Retrieved on March 8, 2007. Dougherty states: ”There is a credible report that Jeffs wants to begin practicing a 19th-century Mormon doctrine calling for the ritualistic human sacrifice of "apostates" who dissent from his rules.”
  38. ^ Krakauer 2003, p. 266-267
  39. ^ Krakauer 2003, p. 266-67
  40. ^ The Los Angeles Times (September 20, 1992) listed her death as ‘suicide’. It should be noted that in The God Makers II, Lillian LeBaron Chynoweth refers to the "Mormon Church" as being responsible for the killings. The film does not make clear that the "Mormon Church" referred to by Chynoweth is actually the "Church of the Lamb of God." The film also makes no mention the suicide and instead infers that Chynoweth was killed.
  41. ^ Beck 2005, p. 190 LDS scholars note a contradiction between the existence of a "Latter-day grapevine" that is aware of "Danites" and the statement that "not many Mormons know this detail of Church history"
  42. ^ Denton 2003, p. 16
  43. ^ Denton 2003, p. 70, 106
  44. ^ Denton 2003, p. 106

[edit] References

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/o/Blood_atonement.html"
In other languages