The blood atonement
From Wiki… “In Mormonism, blood atonement was a controversial doctrine which taught that murder is so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Thus, to atone for these sins the perpetrators must have their blood shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering. The concept was originally taught by Brigham Young, though it appears to be an expansion of the previous teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. This doctrine is no longer accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
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 (see the Mountain Meadow Massacre)”
From Fairmormon.com… “Brigham Young spoke of a doctrine called "blood atonement." Despite a number of rhetorical statements by LDS leaders in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young or any other general authority. Contemporary claims for such actions uniformly come from anti-Mormon books and newspapers with lurid titles such as The Destroying Angels of Mormondom and Abominations of Mormonism Exposed.
The First Presidency issued an official declaration on the matter of killing apostates, as a form of blood atonement, in 1889. This declaration reads, in part:
Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.
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”
My thoughts: This is an interesting topic. Early church leaders taught that SOME sins were so heinous that the only way that one could be forgiven of these sins was to die for them because the atonement wouldn't cover you. There are many quotes from mostly Brigham Young who taught this doctrine to church members, although it looks like this doctrine was introduced with Joseph Smith at one point.
The thing that bothers me is that early church leaders taught this, and NOW in 2010, current church leaders denounce this practice, and state that this doctrine has never existed nor practiced. If you research it, there definitely was talk of it. Now whether or not the doctrine was actually practiced, I didn't look that far into it. But once again, this shows that God has changing policies according to either who's in charge, or the time period. Just because Joseph Smith taught one thing, doesn't mean that a current or future prophet can one day denounce that teaching and make it false.
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 (see the Mountain Meadow Massacre)”
From Fairmormon.com… “Brigham Young spoke of a doctrine called "blood atonement." Despite a number of rhetorical statements by LDS leaders in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young or any other general authority. Contemporary claims for such actions uniformly come from anti-Mormon books and newspapers with lurid titles such as The Destroying Angels of Mormondom and Abominations of Mormonism Exposed.
The First Presidency issued an official declaration on the matter of killing apostates, as a form of blood atonement, in 1889. This declaration reads, in part:
Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.
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”
My thoughts: This is an interesting topic. Early church leaders taught that SOME sins were so heinous that the only way that one could be forgiven of these sins was to die for them because the atonement wouldn't cover you. There are many quotes from mostly Brigham Young who taught this doctrine to church members, although it looks like this doctrine was introduced with Joseph Smith at one point.
The thing that bothers me is that early church leaders taught this, and NOW in 2010, current church leaders denounce this practice, and state that this doctrine has never existed nor practiced. If you research it, there definitely was talk of it. Now whether or not the doctrine was actually practiced, I didn't look that far into it. But once again, this shows that God has changing policies according to either who's in charge, or the time period. Just because Joseph Smith taught one thing, doesn't mean that a current or future prophet can one day denounce that teaching and make it false.
REFERENCES
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement
- http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blood_Atonement
- http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Blood_atonement
- http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/atonement.html
- http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/bloodatonement.htm
- http://mit.irr.org/blood-atonement
- http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041267/Mormon-church-statement-on-blood-atonement.html?pg=all