"Blood Atonement"

[Ian]

our prophets teach the doctrine of atonement by the shedding of blood. our enemies pervert this doctrine to slander the prophets.

our prophets teach that Jesus Christ performed the infinite and all-encompassing atonement by shedding His own blood. we can be cleansed of sin through the blood of Christ. however, to be cleansed, we must obey His laws. we must exercise faith, repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost. if we thereafter commit certain grievous sin, particularly the shedding of innocent blood, then Christ’s atonement alone does not cleanse us from the consequences of that sin. our only hope, then, would involve voluntary shedding of our own blood. this practice of “blood atonement” was operative during the time of moses, but it cannot operate at this time and it is not a doctrine of the church today.

our enemies claim that the church engaged in a practice of “blood atonement” whereby we killed apostates as an atonement for their sins. that is false. our enemies claim that prophets who teach about “blood atonement” are mistaken. that is also false.

the doctrine of atonement by the shedding of blood is true. the revelations to our prophets are true. we can safely rely on all the words of the prophets, past and present. “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”

[Edward]

Hear hear!

[micah]

So are the thousands of murderers who die each year without being executed without a chance to be saved? Is this not what this "doctrine" is saying? Even if they accept Christ and repent? Or does repentance demand their blood? Was Amulek incorrect in teaching that Christ's atonement was the end to shedding of blood?

Do we need to start having vicarious executions? Executions for the dead!

And I know you won't take this to mean anything, but Deseret News did report the following in 2010:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday:

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.

It wasn't read over the pulpit, so I know you will instantly discount this.

But anyway, you can go ahead and believe in a less than infinite atonement of Christ. I believe that Christ's grace can save all men. I believe that we do not need to shed our own blood or atone for our own sins, because infinite means infinite. Christ's atonement covers everything. I personally believe that the doctrine of "blood atonement" is about as anti-Christ as you can get.

[Ian]

my understanding of the atonement is limited, but i put my trust in prophets and in their understanding. they speak on behalf of Christ, so i would not call their teachings anti-Christ.

i don’t think my explanation was inconsistent with the alleged 2010 church statement. in fact, i could be accused of copying some of it.

[John]

I find the following instructive. It comes from Hugh Nibley in the October, 1990 ensign:

...we cannot begin to comprehend the greatness of the supreme sacrifice, but we can make what for us is the supreme sacrifice, as Abraham did when he firmly intended to sacrifice the life of his son in obedience to God’s command. (See Heb. 11:17.) Fortunately, it was not necessary for Abraham or Isaac to go so far. God substituted a ram in Isaac’s place, which in the rites of atonement became forever afterward representative of sacrifice of God’s Only Begotten Son.

Likewise, the Atonement makes all such sacrifice unnecessary; but as with Abraham, the “real intent,” to use the Book of Mormon expression (see Moro. 7:6), must be there: “And [God] said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God [Elohim], seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” (Gen. 22:12.)

Thus, no “blood atonement” is required of us, since the sometimes necessary sacrifice of our lives has nothing to do with atonement of our sins. Only one infinite and eternal sacrifice could pay for sin, but God may still expect us to sacrifice our lives if the need should arise as we struggle to build up the kingdom of God on earth.

The point of all this is that atonement requires of the beneficiary nothing less than willingness to part with his most precious possession.

Joined with the requirement of sacrifice is the requirement of consecration, which has no limiting “if necessary” clause; we agree to it unconditionally here and now. It represents our contribution to our salvation.

[Steve]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the motives behind Micah asking us to justify the words of prophets. It resembles, a little too much, the encounter between Alma and Korihor, and I'd simply respond as Alma did: "The scriptures are laid before thee..." (Alma 30:44). All will be revealed according to the Lord's timetable. Why worry so much about what you clearly do not understand? "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man" (2 Nephi 2:27). If you are diligent and receive that light which you are given with faith and obedience, you'll receive anything else you'll need when you need it. If you're struggling with the notion of "blood atonement," focus on those core doctrines and principles necessary for you at present and other things will become clear as they become expedient.

[Ian]

indeed, no “blood atonement” is required of us. this is only a theoretical principle as far as we’re concerned. it has no application to us. the “blood atonement” doctrine can only operate at a time when there is no separation of church and state, as in the time of moses.

president joseph fielding smith explained it well, to those who have tried to pervert the doctrine to slander the prophets:

Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General-that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ-and, Individual-that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

But 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….

Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ. This is the doctrine you are pleased to call the "blood atonement of Brighamism." This is the doctrine of Christ our Redeemer, who died for us. This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it….

I again recommend you to a careful reading of the quotations in my open letter. You will find them as follows: Book of Mormon-2 Nephi 9:35; Alma 1:13-14 and 42:19. Bible-Inspired Version, Genesis 9:12-13; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 9:22 and 10:26-29; 1 John 3:15 and 5:16. Doctrine and Covenants 42:18-19, 79; 87:7; 101:80….

Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? Of Zemnarihah and his followers? What about Er and Onan, whom the Lord slew? Of Nadab and Abihu? And the death of Achan?

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you misquote. He tells us so, in the same discourse in the portion which you did not quote. It is:

"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would save them."….

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. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning, that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man."

This was the law among the Nephites: "Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die."

John says: "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 ye shall pray for it."….

Every nation since the world began has practiced blood atonement, at least in part, as that doctrine is based upon the scriptures. And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ.

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.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, 133-136

[micah]

How are this:

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.

And this:

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.

Both true?

If this is what Joseph Smith taught, how is it only theoretical and have no application to us?

How is this not a doctrine of the church today? Did the doctrine change? If the blood of Christ can atone for murderers in our society today, how does it lose power in a theocracy?

Anyway, my favorite application of this doctrine is what the early church leaders taught about Judas Iscariot. (By the way, this was brought up in my new testament class at BYU...)

In the Journal of Discourses we find this by Heber C. Kimball:

Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. It is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out.
"I will suffer my bowels to be taken out before I will forfeit the covenant I have made with Him and my brethren." Do you understand me? Judas was like salt that had lost its saving principles—good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.
Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp. 125-26

Of course, you can argue about who the "they" is in this statement. Apologists say it was not the apostles, but from the context I am not sure.

[Ian]

doctrine does not change, but its application changes, under God’s direction.

[Ian]

president kimball's miracle of forgiveness is always instructive:

It is true that the great principle of repentance is always available, but for the wicked and rebellious there are serious reservations to this statement….

In discussing the subject of sin and declaring that the Lord and his Church will forgive transgressions, it must be made clear that there are "sins unto death." John tells us: “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.” (1 John 5:16-17.)

In other words, sins are of different degrees of seriousness. There are those which can be forgiven and those for which one may not promise forgiveness….

John wrote that "no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." The murderer denies himself salvation in the celestial kingdom, and in this sense he cannot be forgiven for his crime….

The Prophet Joseph Smith underlined the seriousness of the sin of murder for David as for all men, and the fact that there is no forgiveness for it. A murderer, for instance, one that sheds innocent blood, cannot have forgiveness….

Perhaps one reason murder is so heinous is that man cannot restore life. Man's mortal life is given him in which to repent and prepare himself for eternity, and should one of his fellowmen terminate his life and thus limit his progress by making his repentance impossible, it would be a ghastly deed, a tremendous responsibility for which the murderer might not be able to atone in his lifetime….

Even among wilful murderers there are grades and categories. There are the Herods and the Eichmanns and the Heydrichs, who kill for sadistic pleasure. There are those who kill in drunkenness, in rage, in anger, in jealousy. There are those who kill for gain, for power, for fear. There are those who kill for lust. They certainly will suffer different degrees of punishment hereafter. The proper earthly penalty for the crime is clearly set out in the scriptures and applied to all ages of the world. This penalty is the prerogative and responsibility of governmental authority, since no unauthorized person may take the law into his own hands and slay a fellow being:
“Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Gen. 9:6.)
“He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.” (Ex. 21:12.)
“And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:17.)
“. . . Thou shalt not kill, but he that killeth shall die.” (D&C 42:19.)

Occasionally people who have murdered come to the Church requesting baptism, having come to some partial realization of the enormity of the crime. Missionaries do not knowingly baptize such people. Rather than assuming this great responsibility, they refer the problem to their mission presidents who in turn will wish to refer the matter to the First Presidency of the Church. This response is in line with Joseph Smith's comment on murderers, and particularly on those of the Savior:
Peter referred to the same subject on the day of Pentecost, but the multitude did not get the endowment that Peter had; but several days after the people asked, "What shall we do?" Peter says, "I would ye had done it ignorantly," speaking of crucifying the Lord, etc. He did not say to them, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins"; but he said, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."
This is the case with murderers. "They could not be baptized for the remission of sins, for they had shed innocent blood."

To Church members the word is clear:
"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." (D&C 42:18.)
"And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you shall kill they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness; and it shall be proved according to the laws of the land." (D&C 42:79.)….

Even unpardonable sins should be repented of. The murderer does not have eternal life abiding in him, but a merciful God will grant to every soul adequate rewards for every good deed he does. God is just. He will compensate for every effort to do good, to repent, to overcome sin. Even the murderer is justified in repenting and mending his ways and building up a credit balance in his favor.

Much better is it to avoid the steps which lead to unforgivable sin. Thus as a preventive measure against murder one should avoid anger and hatred, avarice and greed, and any of the other impulses which can spark the act. Nephi said his brothers were murderers at heart. One usually will commit the deed in his thoughts many times before he will deliberately commit the crime in actuality.

Similarly the wise Church member will not take the first step in separating himself from the Church, as many do through apostasy. He will pray frequently and regularly, read the scriptures, and generally stay close to the Lord. He will diligently fulfill his Church and family duties and will follow the counsel of his spiritual leaders. By so doing he will always be able to repent of his sins as he pursues the upward road; he will never approach the unforgivable sin; he will never get anywhere near the point of no return.

Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 117-132

[Ann]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and this information has satisfied any curiosity I might have developed on the topic. I am more curious to some day understand how the Atonement is applied for people who have committed suicide. I would imagine that for those who are much more painfully affected by this, patience in understanding would require so much faith.
I'm glad we are not expected to fully understand the Savior's Atonement in this life. I am still working on understanding how repentance and forgiveness work in my own life, not to mention the lives of others. It is fortunate that we will not be the ones judging our family members, friends, patients, or even ourselves for our eternal destinations. I am more than happy to leave this judgment to someone with perfect understanding and perfect love.

[Ian]

elder ballard wrote an article about suicide called "Some Things We Know, and Some We Do Not." it was also published as a small book. elder ballard explained: "Suicide is a sin—a very grievous one, yet the Lord will not judge the person who commits that sin strictly by the act itself. The Lord will look at that person’s circumstances and the degree of his accountability at the time of the act."

i agree with ann that we are blessed not to fully understand the atonement, and not to make these final judgments. Heavenly Father withholds information from us, as any wise parent would. that said, i believe everything that the prophets have taught regarding these doctrines.