The LDS Blood Atonement heresy Doctrine

[The Prophet]

THE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT

CLEANSING POWER OF BLOOD OF CHRIST. The Latter-day Saints believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ. They believe that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel they obtain a remission of sins; but this could not be if Christ had not died for them. 26 If you did believe in blood atonement, I might ask you why the blood of Christ was shed, and in whose stead was it shed? I might ask you to explain the words of Paul, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." 27

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon? And is not this further reason why you should discard the book as well as the name? Is it not safe for us to rely upon the scriptures for the solution of problems of this kind?

TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. 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.

MURDERERS AND THE ATONEMENT. 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.

Doctrine of Salvation Vol 1 pages 133-134

 

[Theo1689]

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.

There's a reason Utah is the only State in the Union that still has "firing squad" as an option for the death penalty.

 

[Magdalena]

There's a reason Utah is the only State in the Union that still has "firing squad" as an option for the death penalty.

Journal of Discourses 4:220 “This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.” – Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857

Mormon Doctrine, pg. 92 “But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment.”

Doctrines of Salvation 1:133 “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….To these I will add: “Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses…”

Doctrines of Salvation 1:135 “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.”

 

[Magdalena]

“I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God…” (Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 5:296).

“Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case, and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands” (Brigham Young, JOD 3:247).

“If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing. I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity … If I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do, to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people” (Brigham Young, JOD 1:108).

“Shall I tell you of the law of God in regards to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Brigham Young, JOD 10:110)

“I say, there are men and women that I would advise to got to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye … I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood … Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid” (Jedediah M. Grant, JOD 4:49-51).

 

[Bonnie]

Is blood atonement for murder still taught in the LDS church? What about for committing adultery more than once? Wasn't that also at one time one of the sins that Jesus' blood would not cover?

My husband was a chaplain for over 5 years to a man who had been on death row for over 25 years, for murder in the second decree. But he came to saving faith in Jesus Christ our Lord, and wholeheartedly confessed his sins before he was executed. My husband was allowed to give him Holy Communion right before he was executed by lethal injection. Right before they gave him the injection, he confessed his faith, that he knew he was saved.

But I guess according to the LDS Church, this poor man was not saved to heaven. Jesus' blood didn't cover his sins and so, he isn't saved...

What a...puny little Christ the LDS church has! The blood of SINNERS can cleanse the murderer of his sins, but the blood of the Holy and Righteous Son of God canNOT! Can anyone beside myself see the irony in that?

 

[Magdalena]

Brigham Young instituted the “oath of vengeance” into the Mormon temple ceremony after the death of Joseph Smith. It was removed in the early 1930’s...

“You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.”

Oath of vengeance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The temple blood oaths, or penalties, however, were not removed until 1990. These were agreements attendees made that they would rather have their throats and bellies slit open, than disobey the temple covenants. They had to make gestures of throat and belly slitting while making the promise.

Mormonism denied the power and meaning of Christ’s atonement.

 

[Magdalena]

Is blood atonement for murder still taught in the LDS church? What about for committing adultery more than once? Wasn't that also at one time one of the sins that Jesus' blood would not cover?

My husband was a chaplain for over 5 years to a man who had been on death row for over 25 years, for murder in the second decree. But he came to saving faith in Jesus Christ our Lord, and wholeheartedly confessed his sins before he was executed. My husband was allowed to give him Holy Communion right before he was executed by lethal injection. Right before they gave him the injection, he confessed his faith, that he knew he was saved.

But I guess according to the LDS Church, this poor man was not saved to heaven. Jesus' blood didn't cover his sins and so, he isn't saved...

What a...puny little Christ the LDS church has! The blood of SINNERS can cleanse the murderer of his sins, but the blood of the Holy and Righteous Son of God canNOT! Can anyone beside myself see the irony in that?

In my post above yours there are quotes from Brigham Young about blood atonement for adultery.

As a Mormon, I was taught that there are some sins not covered by the atonement, and murder was one of those.

I think they’ve eased up a bit on adultery, although a lot of people get excommunicated for it.

But I remember even in the 1950’s and 60’s they were telling young people it would be better to die than lose their chastity.

 

[Redeemed]

Brigham Young instituted the “oath of vengeance” into the Mormon temple ceremony after the death of Joseph Smith. It was removed in the early 1930’s...

“You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.”

Oath of vengeance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The temple blood oaths, or penalties, however, were not removed until 1990. These were agreements attendees made that they would rather have their throats and bellies slit open, than disobey the temple covenants. They had to make gestures of throat and belly slitting while making the promise.

Mormonism denied the power and meaning of Christ’s atonement.

I read somewhere yesterday that Mormonism was the Islam of America. After reading your post I think I'm starting to get the picture. It was definitely wrong of US citizens to kill Joseph Smith as I don't believe there was any trial or if he committed any capital offense but to pray down a curse on a whole nation is a little extreme. Whatever happened to forgiveness? And that hole gesture thing that's downright spooky. Then you teach your kids to do the same does sound rather like Islam.

 

[Aaron32]

I read somewhere yesterday that Mormonism was the Islam of America. After reading your post I think I'm starting to get the picture. It was definitely wrong of US citizens to kill Joseph Smith as I don't believe there was any trial or if he committed any capital offense but to pray down a curse on a whole nation is a little extreme. Whatever happened to forgiveness? And that hole gesture thing that's downright spooky. Then you teach your kids to do the same does sound rather like Islam.

Before you carry that belief, you may want to talk to an actual member and not a naysayer.

 

[Bonnie]

In my post above yours there are quotes from Brigham Young about blood atonement for adultery.

As a Mormon, I was taught that there are some sins not covered by the atonement, and murder was one of those.

I think they’ve eased up a bit on adultery, although a lot of people get excommunicated for it.

But I remember even in the 1950’s and 60’s they were telling young people it would be better to die than lose their chastity.

I remember reading about the last part, in some older Mormon magazine or something similar, that I found online. I think it told girls that it would be better to die than to give into a rapist, so one could survive the encounter. is that what you were thinking of?

 

[Bonnie]

I read somewhere yesterday that Mormonism was the Islam of America. After reading your post I think I'm starting to get the picture. It was definitely wrong of US citizens to kill Joseph Smith as I don't believe there was any trial or if he committed any capital offense but to pray down a curse on a whole nation is a little extreme. Whatever happened to forgiveness? And that hole gesture thing that's downright spooky. Then you teach your kids to do the same does sound rather like Islam.

Well, there is a book about called something like "Joseph Smith--the American Mohammed." Or something similar.

Yes, it was wrong for Smith to be murdered by that crowd. I wish with all my heart he had not, so he could have stood trial, and the charges of fraud and maybe treason could have been brought against him. Maybe his sheep that followed him so blindly would have seen him for the lying false shepherd that he really was.

 

[Aaron32]

Is blood atonement for murder still taught in the LDS church? What about for committing adultery more than once? Wasn't that also at one time one of the sins that Jesus' blood would not cover?

My husband was a chaplain for over 5 years to a man who had been on death row for over 25 years, for murder in the second decree. But he came to saving faith in Jesus Christ our Lord, and wholeheartedly confessed his sins before he was executed. My husband was allowed to give him Holy Communion right before he was executed by lethal injection. Right before they gave him the injection, he confessed his faith, that he knew he was saved.

But I guess according to the LDS Church, this poor man was not saved to heaven. Jesus' blood didn't cover his sins and so, he isn't saved...

What a...puny little Christ the LDS church has! The blood of SINNERS can cleanse the murderer of his sins, but the blood of the Holy and Righteous Son of God canNOT! Can anyone beside myself see the irony in that?

So tell me Bonnie, am I ok to do as I please as long as I confess “the real” Jesus right before I die?
I believe Jesus saves us “from our sins” not “in our sins”.

 

[The Prophet]

So tell me Bonnie, am I ok to do as I please as long as I confess “the real” Jesus right before I die?
I believe Jesus saves us “from our sins” not “in our sins”.

I would think Aaron you will be having a problem of being saved ​

 

[Theo1689]

So tell me Bonnie, am I ok to do as I please as long as I confess “the real” Jesus right before I die?

If that is your actual thought process, then your "confession" will be fake, insincere, and worthless.

I believe Jesus saves us “from our sins” not “in our sins”.

So you believe you have to "stop sinning", before Jesus can save you?
If you truly believe that, then you have absolutely no clue as to the depths of your sin.

A friend of mine came (who used to post here, years ago) came up with a good analogy of the Saviour and Mormonism. Trying to "become righteous" before Christ will save you, is like cleaning up your house before you hire the maid. That's not to say that you should go out of your way to "dirty" the place, just because you can. Many people hire a maid precisely because they are UNABLE (for whatever reason) to keep the place clean on their own. But if you clean the house yourself, why do you need a maid?

And likewise, if you can be righteous on your own, why do you need a Saviour?

There are a couple of Mormons here (or who used to be here) who liked to quote C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity", to try to argue the "necessity" of works. And ironically, they quoted about "scissors" from one of his two chapters on "faith". And ironically, it is clear that no Mormon who quotes from those chapters has ever actually read them.

Maybe this will help your understanding;

"No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good."
[...]
"We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means—the only complete realist. Very well, then. The main thing we learn from a serious attempt to practise the Christian virtues is that we fail. If there was any idea that God had set us a sort of exam, and that we might get good marks by deserving them, that has to be wiped out. If there was any idea of a sort of bargain—any idea that we could perform our side of the contract and thus put God in our debts so that it was up to Him, in mere justice, to perform His side—that has to be wiped out."
[...]
I am trying to talk about Faith in the second sense, the higher sense. I said last week that the question of Faith in this sense arises after a man has tried his level best to practise the Christian virtues, and found that he fails, and seen that even if he could he would only be giving back to God what was already God's own. In other words, he discovers his bankruptcy.
[...]
He is misunderstanding what he is and what God is. And he cannot get into the right relation until he has discovered the fact of our bankruptcy.
[...]
Now we cannot, in that sense, discover our failure to keep God's law except by trying our very hardest (and then failing). Unless we really try, whatever we say there will always be at the back of our minds the idea that if we try harder next time we shall succeed in being completely good. Thus, in one sense, the road back to God is a road of moral effort, of trying harder and harder. But in another sense it is not trying that is ever going to bring us home. All this trying leads up to the vital moment at which you turn to God and say, "You must do this. I can't."
-- Lewis, C. S.. Mere Christianity . CrossReach Publications. Kindle Edition.

 

[Theo1689]

So tell me Bonnie, am I ok to do as I please as long as I confess “the real” Jesus right before I die?
I believe Jesus saves us “from our sins” not “in our sins”.

You see, this is a perfect example of Mormons not the least bit interested in what we ACTUALLY believe, but simply trying to falsely accuse us of teaching heresies such as "cheap grace" and "license to sin".

If you TRULY want to understand what we believe (and clearly you don't), why don't you simply ASK us, instead of self-servingly projecting derogatory heresies onto us?

 

[Redeemed]

Before you carry that belief, you may want to talk to an actual member and not a naysayer.

But naysayers are so cool. ok let's go for, I take it you're an actual member? If so I'd like to ask you about eternal security. When you were baptized did it that take away all your sins past present and future?

 

[Theo1689]

Before you carry that belief, you may want to talk to an actual member and not a naysayer.

Why?

Are "actual members" going to tell people about the "Mountain Meadows Massacre"?
Are "actual members" going to tell people about the "Danites"?
Are "actual members" going to tell people about "blood atonement"?
Are "actual members" going to tell people about how Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught that people were living on the Moon, and on the Sun (!), and after Apollo 11 landed on the Moon and they found nobody, many Mormons left the church?

No, "actual members" sometimes even deny the belief in "plural gods".

 

[Bonnie]

So tell me Bonnie, am I ok to do as I please as long as I confess “the real” Jesus right before I die?

Where did I say or even allude to such a thing? Is that what you think happened to that poor man that was executed? He was raised in a Christian home, but went astray in his later years. My husband knew him really well for over 5 years and he slowly led him back to true faith in Christ Jesus our Lord. My husband was THERE when he was executed and HEARD his confession of his sins before receiving Holy Communion, and his confession of his faith right before he was injected! He was actually there and in a far better position to judge the man's faith than YOU are!

Maybe the Mormon Jesus' blood is too weak to cover the sins of a murderer who has confessed his crimes, but the blood of the TRUE Jesus Christ of the Bible covers ALL of our sins, except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is the sin of rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord and God and Savior.

"If we confess our sins, God, who is faithful and just, will forgive our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

I believe Jesus saves us “from our sins” not “in our sins”.

"While we were STILL sinners, Christ died for us." "But to the one who does NOT work, but believes in Him Who justifies the UNgodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Romans 4)

So, Jesus won't save us until we are OUT OF our sins? Is that it? How do we get "out of" our sins so Jesus will deign to save us?

 

[Bonnie]

If that is your actual thought process, then your "confession" will be fake, insincere, and worthless.



So you believe you have to "stop sinning", before Jesus can save you?
If you truly believe that, then you have absolutely no clue as to the depths of your sin.

A friend of mine came (who used to post here, years ago) came up with a good analogy of the Saviour and Mormonism. Trying to "become righteous" before Christ will save you, is like cleaning up your house before you hire the maid. That's not to say that you should go out of your way to "dirty" the place, just because you can. Many people hire a maid precisely because they are UNABLE (for whatever reason) to keep the place clean on their own. But if you clean the house yourself, why do you need a maid?

And likewise, if you can be righteous on your own, why do you need a Saviour?

There are a couple of Mormons here (or who used to be here) who liked to quote C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity", to try to argue the "necessity" of works. And ironically, they quoted about "scissors" from one of his two chapters on "faith". And ironically, it is clear that no Mormon who quotes from those chapters has ever actually read them.

Maybe this will help your understanding;

"No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good."
[...]
"We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means—the only complete realist. Very well, then. The main thing we learn from a serious attempt to practise the Christian virtues is that we fail. If there was any idea that God had set us a sort of exam, and that we might get good marks by deserving them, that has to be wiped out. If there was any idea of a sort of bargain—any idea that we could perform our side of the contract and thus put God in our debts so that it was up to Him, in mere justice, to perform His side—that has to be wiped out."
[...]
I am trying to talk about Faith in the second sense, the higher sense. I said last week that the question of Faith in this sense arises after a man has tried his level best to practise the Christian virtues, and found that he fails, and seen that even if he could he would only be giving back to God what was already God's own. In other words, he discovers his bankruptcy.
[...]
He is misunderstanding what he is and what God is. And he cannot get into the right relation until he has discovered the fact of our bankruptcy.
[...]
Now we cannot, in that sense, discover our failure to keep God's law except by trying our very hardest (and then failing). Unless we really try, whatever we say there will always be at the back of our minds the idea that if we try harder next time we shall succeed in being completely good. Thus, in one sense, the road back to God is a road of moral effort, of trying harder and harder. But in another sense it is not trying that is ever going to bring us home. All this trying leads up to the vital moment at which you turn to God and say, "You must do this. I can't."
-- Lewis, C. S.. Mere Christianity . CrossReach Publications. Kindle Edition.

All our trying to be righteous on our own is doomed to failure. That is the main use of the Law--to act as a mirror, to show us just how righteously bankrupt we truly are. All it takes is one nasty, unkind thought, one blown temper, one lustful leer--and we are back to square one and must start all over again.

 

[Bonnie]

Why?

Are "actual members" going to tell people about the "Mountain Meadows Massacre"?
Are "actual members" going to tell people about the "Danites"?
Are "actual members" going to tell people about "blood atonement"?
Are "actual members" going to tell people about how Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught that people were living on the Moon, and on the Sun (!), and after Apollo 11 landed on the Moon and they found nobody, many Mormons left the church?

No, "actual members" sometimes even deny the belief in "plural gods".

Or will "actual members" tell people about how Smith married many other women besides Emma, including at least one 14-year old girl, and other men's wives, usually by manipulating them into becoming his wives, mostly behind Emma's back? Will "actual members" tell people about how Smith taught the WoW but didn't actually practice it himself, drinking and smoking?