Difference between revisions of "Question: What is "blood atonement"?"

m (top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}})
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FME-Source
+
{{Main Page}}
|title=Question: What is "blood atonement"?
 
|category=Blood atonement
 
}}
 
 
<onlyinclude>
 
<onlyinclude>
 
==Question: What is "blood atonement"?==
 
==Question: What is "blood atonement"?==
Line 41: Line 38:
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 
</onlyinclude>
 
</onlyinclude>
 +
 +
===Correspondence from Joseph Fielding Smith===
 +
*[https://archive.org/details/bloodatonementpm00smit ''Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage''], correspondence between Joseph Fielding Smith and Richard C. Evans.
 +
 
{{endnotes sources}}
 
{{endnotes sources}}
 
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
Line 48: Line 49:
  
 
[[de:Frage: Was ist „Blutsühne”?]]
 
[[de:Frage: Was ist „Blutsühne”?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué es "expiación de la sangre"?]]
 
 
[[pt:Pergunta: O que é "expiação pelo sangue"?]]
 
[[pt:Pergunta: O que é "expiação pelo sangue"?]]
 +
[[Category:Questions]]

Latest revision as of 14:33, 13 April 2024


Question: What is "blood atonement"?

If a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior's sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ.

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.[1]

Reports of "blood atonement" having occurred were exaggerated and sensationalized

As one historian noted,

That the doctrine [of blood atonement] was preached by high officials is a matter of record; the intent of the sermons became a matter of conjecture; and the results therefrom set vivid imaginations working overtime. Blood fairly flowed through the writing of such men as Beadle in Life in Utah or the Mysteries of Mormonism and Polygamy, in Linn's The Story of Mormonism, and even Stenhouse's anonymous chapter on Reformation and Blood Atonement in his Rocky Mountain Saints. Numerous killings, including the Mountain Meadows massacre, were credited as the fruits of the doctrine....

Omitted from quotations used by the anti-Mormons were restraining clauses such as follow from Brigham Young:

. . . The time has been in Israel under the law of God that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life.

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.

The doctrine of blood atonement which involved concern for the salvation of those to be subjected to it, could have little meaning in the [p.62] Mountain Meadows massacre, or any other of the murders laid unproved on the Mormon threshold (emphasis added).[2]

There is evidence that some crimes were considered worthy of death, even in the apostolic age among Christians

Despite the critics' claims, there is evidence that some crimes were considered worthy of death, even in the apostolic age among Christians:

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him....[Chapter 5] If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not" (1 John 3:15; 1 John 5:16-18) (italics added).


Correspondence from Joseph Fielding Smith


Notes

  1. Lowell M. Snow, "Blood atonement," Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
  2. Gustave O. Larson, "The Mormon Reformation," Utah Historical Quarterly 26/1 (January 1958): 60-62.