Blood Atonement: Is it real?

[_Runtu]

A while back, I was told that Blood Atonement was a fiction made up after the fact by anti-Mormons. I ran across this quote from Michael Quinn:

"During this period Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders also repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women. Blood-atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, 'covenant breaking,' counterfeiting, 'many men who left this Church,' murder, not being 'heartily on the Lord's side,' profaning 'the name of the Lord,' sexual intercourse between a 'white' person and an African-American, stealing, and telling lies....
"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.
"Moreover, a decade before Utah's reformation, Brigham Young's private instructions show that he fully expected his trusted associates to kill various persons for violating religious obligations. The LDS church's official history still quotes Young's words to 'the brethren' in February 1846: 'I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut.' The following December he instructed bishops, 'when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro' him in the River,' and Young did not instruct them to ask his permission. A week later the church president explained to a Winter Quarters meeting that cutting off the heads of repeated sinners 'is the law of God & it shall be executed...' A rephrase of Young's words later appeared in Hosea Stout's reference to a specific sinner, 'to cut him off--behind the ears--according to the law of God in such cases.'...
"When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed 'if they were far away from the Gentiles.'"(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pages 246-247)

Was Quinn right, or was our apologist friend right? Did the leadership really teach and practice that some sins required the shedding of people's blood? I don't want this to become a bash-fest, but I just found it interesting because, even as a member, I had been told of Blood Atonement (and been taught that it was a true principle on more than one occasion). Just wondering what you all think.

[_Yoda]

The temple penalties, which are no longer practiced, were symbolic of blood atonement.

You can't get much more real than that.

[_Runtu]

The temple penalties, which are no longer practiced, were symbolic of blood atonement.

You can't get much more real than that.

Well, yeah, there's that. I was really glad when that went away, needless to say.

[_Yoda]

Me, too. I always thought that part was really creepy.

[_asbestosman]

Was Quinn right, or was our apologist friend right?

I don't know for sure as I do not have enough familiarity with the circumstances (quotes from the JoD aren't sufficient).

Did the leadership really teach and practice that some sins required the shedding of people's blood?

If we believe that Jesus had to atone for our sins by the shedding of his blood, then I suppose the answer is yes.

I don't want this to become a bash-fest, but I just found it interesting because, even as a member, I had been told of Blood Atonement (and been taught that it was a true principle on more than one occasion). Just wondering what you all think.

I think none of us really understand how the atonement of Jesus is supposed to pay for our sins. Doesn't justice require that our sins separate us from God forever? How then was Christ not separated from God forever?

[_Pahoran]

The temple penalties, which are no longer practiced, were symbolic of blood atonement.

No. They were not.

I could say more, but I won't. Believing Latter-day Saints do not profane the Temple by discussing sacred matters in such an environment; and persons of good character, if such there be, will neither exploit that fact nor attempt to draw invidious conclusions therefrom.

You can't get much more real than that.

Actually you can get a lot "more real" than merely symbolic and harmless gestures, but I agree that you won't get "more real" if you are looking for evidence in support of the "blood atonement" libel.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

The temple penalties, which are no longer practiced, were symbolic of blood atonement.

No. They were not.

I could say more, but I won't. Believing Latter-day Saints do not profane the Temple by discussing sacred matters in such an environment; and persons of good character, if such there be, will neither exploit that fact nor attempt to draw invidious conclusions therefrom.

You can't get much more real than that.

Actually you can get a lot "more real" than merely symbolic and harmless gestures, but I agree that you won't get "more real" if you are looking for evidence in support of the "blood atonement" libel.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pah,

I sincerely wasn't trying to pick a fight about this. I just hadn't ever heard anyone say that it was a fictitious libel. Maybe you could educate me a little, as I really don't know all that much about this topic.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Was Quinn right, or was our apologist friend right? Did the leadership really teach and practice that some sins required the shedding of people's blood? I don't want this to become a bash-fest, but I just found it interesting because, even as a member, I had been told of Blood Atonement (and been taught that it was a true principle on more than one occasion). Just wondering what you all think.

I think it probably did happen on ocassion, but was relatively rare. There are many stories of blood atonement murders. Here is one from John D. Lee:

Rasmos Anderson was a Danish man who came to Utah... He had married a widow lady somewhat older than himself... At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery... they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter. This Council was composed of Klingensmith and his two counselors; it was the Bishop's Council. Without giving Anderson any chance to defend himself or make a statement, the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections... His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried... she being directed to tell those who should inquire after her husband that he had gone to California.

Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey Council. Anderson got up... and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the "Almighty God." They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.

As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash... She obeyed their orders.... Anderson was killed just before the Mountain Meadows massacre. The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act. It was justified by all the people, for they were bound by the same covenants, and the least word of objection to thus treating the man who had broken his covenant would have brought the same fate upon the person who was so foolish as to raise his voice against any act committed by order of the Church authorities.

Confessions of John D. Lee, pp. 282-83 (all bold mine for emphasis)

A BYU professor of Church History, Gustive O. Larsen, seems to back up Lee's story, when he wrote in 1958:

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 stepdaughter 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 [Mormon] Reformation.

Utah Historical Quarterly, January 1958, p. 62 n. 39 (all bold mine for emphasis)

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Sounds kinda of messy to me...maybe they could use fake blood...it is easier to wash out of clothes


You know I believe every single story I read especially when a Mormon has said it....

[_Who Knows]

From the Sheilds site: The following is a copy of a letter from Elder Bruce R. McConkie, acting under the direction of the President Kimball and the First Presidency, responding to this issue:

http://www.shields-research.org/General ... nement.htm

McConkie basically says that Blood Atonement is only a 'theoretical principle' that isn't practiced today. He also says "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."