blood atonement

[curiouscat]

There is an article on Main Page - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki (specifically at Blood Atonement - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki) called "Blood Atonement" and it quoted a Church statement about blood atonement.

Can someone direct me to the Church's original statement?

All I can find is the Deseret News article about it. Shouldn't the Church have it on an official Church site?

[bytebear]

There is an article on Main Page - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki (specifically at Blood Atonement - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki) called "Blood Atonement" and it quoted a Church statement about blood atonement.

Can someone direct me to the Church's original statement?

All I can find is the Deseret News article about it. Shouldn't the Church have it on an official Church site?

The answer was in the link you provided.

"In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

"However, so-called 'blood atonement,' by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people."

This is the church's official statement on the matter.

[Moksha]

Curiouscat, I imagine all organizations have some material that they would like to set aside and not talk about and I suspect this is one for the correlated Church. Historians always have to look under rocks and trees, and if you insist you can find much information on this topic, just not in the places you proposed to look.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

There is an article on Main Page - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki (specifically at Blood Atonement - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki) called "Blood Atonement" and it quoted a Church statement about blood atonement.

Can someone direct me to the Church's original statement?

All I can find is the Deseret News article about it. Shouldn't the Church have it on an official Church site?

When you examine the statements Brigham Young made regarding Blood Atonement, and then look to the Judeo Christian Faith and the Biblical Text, you will find that "Blood Atonement" has been taught by God, practiced by Ancient Israelites, and even practiced by Protestant Christians who were before BY and were contemporaries of BY.

Some Critics ridicule and chastise BY's strong language where he spoke of piercing a wife who commits adultery by killing her and her lover. Yet, Virginia Law of the late 1600's held Adultery as being punishable by Death.

Levitical Law held Adultery as a Capital offense and punishable by Death.

So, while the Critics like to chastise BY for his teaching on this, they refuse to ridicule and chastise early Christian Preachers and the Bible itself for teaching the very same practice that is self-evident as being approved and commanded by God himself, then changed in the New Testament when those who went to stone the Adulteress that was brought before Christ.

[Jamie123]

When you examine the statements Brigham Young made regarding Blood Atonement, and then look to the Judeo Christian Faith and the Biblical Text, you will find that "Blood Atonement" has been taught by God, practiced by Ancient Israelites, and even practiced by Protestant Christians who were before BY and were contemporaries of BY.

Some Critics ridicule and chastise BY's strong language where he spoke of piercing a wife who commits adultery by killing her and her lover. Yet, Virginia Law of the late 1600's held Adultery as being punishable by Death.

Levitical Law held Adultery as a Capital offense and punishable by Death.

So, while the Critics like to chastise BY for his teaching on this, they refuse to ridicule and chastise early Christian Preachers and the Bible itself for teaching the very same practice that is self-evident as being approved and commanded by God himself, then changed in the New Testament when those who went to stone the Adulteress that was brought before Christ.

There are indeed some scary things in the Bible, which Richard Dawkins (and people like him) love to dig up and rub in Christians' faces. I think its a matter of context - you need to view these things against the historical background of the times. Brigham Young might seem shocking to the modern mind, until you compare him with things like the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572, and the slow burning of Michael Servetus by John Calvin in 1553.

[Just_A_Guy]

I searched GospeLink last night on "blood atonement". The best exposition in favor of it comes from Joseph Fielding Smith in his Answers to Gospel Questions, published in the late fifties/early sixties. I also came across some LDS periodicals from the 1880s-1890s acknowledging the teaching but denying that the Church ever either practiced it, or had any right to practice it.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the idea as taught per JFS. I don't mind the Church rebutting the idea, either; but (like the OP) I wish they'd do it in a slightly more official and unambiguous way.

[bytebear]

When you examine the statements Brigham Young made regarding Blood Atonement, and then look to the Judeo Christian Faith and the Biblical Text, you will find that "Blood Atonement" has been taught by God, practiced by Ancient Israelites, and even practiced by Protestant Christians who were before BY and were contemporaries of BY.

Some Critics ridicule and chastise BY's strong language where he spoke of piercing a wife who commits adultery by killing her and her lover. Yet, Virginia Law of the late 1600's held Adultery as being punishable by Death.

Levitical Law held Adultery as a Capital offense and punishable by Death.

So, while the Critics like to chastise BY for his teaching on this, they refuse to ridicule and chastise early Christian Preachers and the Bible itself for teaching the very same practice that is self-evident as being approved and commanded by God himself, then changed in the New Testament when those who went to stone the Adulteress that was brought before Christ.

There's a difference between believing in capital punishment (even for infractions society now considers benign) and teaching that the purpose of capital punishment is to atone for sin because Jesus' blood is insufficient. I think the purpose of capital punishment got muddled somewhat in the writings of BY or the interpretations of those writings.

[Intrigued]

There's a difference between believing in capital punishment (even for infractions society now considers benign) and teaching that the purpose of capital punishment is to atone for sin because Jesus' blood is insufficient. I think the purpose of capital punishment got muddled somewhat in the writings of BY or the interpretations of those writings.

I don't necessarily see the two as exclusive.. if the 'blood atonement' were real and practiced by the Church (now or ever) it doesn't demean the sacrifice that Jesus made in any way.. it also does not mean that it [the sacrifice] would be insufficient.

It makes sense in an odd way -- 'you do the crime you do the time'. Forgiveness of sins does not mean there will be no punishments or restitution for our crimes. Perhaps the more severe the sin the more severe the punishment.. who can say?

[Guest mysticmorini]

I don't necessarily see the two as exclusive.. if the 'blood atonement' were real and practiced by the Church (now or ever) it doesn't demean the sacrifice that Jesus made in any way.. it also does not mean that it [the sacrifice] would be insufficient.

It makes sense in an odd way -- 'you do the crime you do the time'. Forgiveness of sins does not mean there will be no punishments or restitution for our crimes. Perhaps the more severe the sin the more severe the punishment.. who can say?

also consider that restitution is part of the repentance process. how can one make restitution for murder or adultery? i think part of BY reasoning was that if one is truly repentant he/she should be willing to do whatever it takes to make restitution, even if that means giving ones own life.

[Blackmarch]

When you examine the statements Brigham Young made regarding Blood Atonement, and then look to the Judeo Christian Faith and the Biblical Text, you will find that "Blood Atonement" has been taught by God, practiced by Ancient Israelites, and even practiced by Protestant Christians who were before BY and were contemporaries of BY.

Some Critics ridicule and chastise BY's strong language where he spoke of piercing a wife who commits adultery by killing her and her lover. Yet, Virginia Law of the late 1600's held Adultery as being punishable by Death.

Levitical Law held Adultery as a Capital offense and punishable by Death.

So, while the Critics like to chastise BY for his teaching on this, they refuse to ridicule and chastise early Christian Preachers and the Bible itself for teaching the very same practice that is self-evident as being approved and commanded by God himself, then changed in the New Testament when those who went to stone the Adulteress that was brought before Christ.

nor was BY even focusing on capitol punishment as a judgement itself in that discourse (he was using an extreme case to try to show something)... but rather was trying to teach about not dishing out judgements, and leaving them to God.

Unfortunately many many many critics like to not read most of the paragraph(s) that a lot of "blood atonement" critcisms are taken from.

[prisonchaplain]

When you examine the statements Brigham Young made regarding Blood Atonement, and then look to the Judeo Christian Faith and the Biblical Text, you will find that "Blood Atonement" has been taught by God, practiced by Ancient Israelites, and even practiced by Protestant Christians who were before BY and were contemporaries of BY.

Maybe you can break this down for me a bit. Jews practiced "blood atonement" as a form of capital punishment in a theocratic nation. So, if BY's teaching is to be compared to this, was he suggesting a context of a Mormon state, with the church as its government? I frankly haven't read this particular teaching, but if an equivalency is being suggested, is capital punishment what BY had in mind?

Also, were Protestant Christians of BY's day practing blood atonement??? Examples might be helpful.

Some Critics ridicule and chastise BY's strong language where he spoke of piercing a wife who commits adultery by killing her and her lover. Yet, Virginia Law of the late 1600's held Adultery as being punishable by Death.

Is this an equivalency justification? If so, it's like comparing U.S. law from the early 1800s with current law and suggestions it's equivalent. A couple hundred years creates a completely different context. For a prophet to recommend relatively ancient historic practices to be revived might indeed raise some eyebrows. Imagine if the leader of my church even so much as suggested bringing back Prohibition--something that was our highest law only 70 years ago.

Levitical Law held Adultery as a Capital offense and punishable by Death.

Again, in the context of a theocratic state with a strong social consensus.

So, while the Critics like to chastise BY for his teaching on this, they refuse to ridicule and chastise early Christian Preachers and the Bible itself for teaching the very same practice that is self-evident as being approved and commanded by God himself, then changed in the New Testament when those who went to stone the Adulteress that was brought before Christ.

I see why you find this somewhat hypocritical, and I have no defense for those who enjoy bringing up these matters merely out of an effort to embarrass. Nevertheless, these comparisons are hardly equivalent, and each case should be looked at within its context.

[kevinpeter]

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.

Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood Atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement—which was based on voluntary submission by an offender—into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.