Across the library

Blood atonement

Brigham Young preached it, the church printed and sold it, and the church has formally denied it twice — in 1889, and again in 2010 the night before Utah executed a man by firing squad. The whole record, every quote linked to its source.

Blood atonement is the teaching that some sins are beyond the reach of Christ's atonement, and that the only way for the sinner to be saved is to have his own blood shed. It was preached hardest in 1856 and 1857, printed and sold in the church's own sermon series, restated as doctrine in a bestselling reference book a century later, and formally denied by the church twice — in 1889, and again in 2010 the night before Utah executed a man by firing squad. This page puts the record in one place, and every quote links to its source.

1856: the Reformation

The sermons have a setting. The church's 2014 essay on nineteenth-century violence describes it:

In the mid-1850s, a 'reformation' within the Church and tensions between the Latter-day Saints in Utah and the U.S. federal government contributed to a siege mentality and a renewed sense of persecution that led to several episodes of violence committed by Church members.

Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints, Gospel Topics Essays, 2014

The same essay states what was taught, in one sentence:

Drawing on biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, leaders taught that some sins were so serious that the perpetrator's blood would have to be shed in order to receive forgiveness.

Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints, Gospel Topics Essays, 2014

The sermons that taught it

All three of these are from volume 4 of the Journal of Discourses, preached within months of each other at the height of the Reformation. First, Jedediah M. Grant, the counselor in the First Presidency who drove the Reformation until his death in December 1856:

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, Rebuking Iniquity, Journal of Discourses, Volume 4

Brigham Young, in a discourse whose printed title includes Atonement By the Shedding of Blood:

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

Brigham Young, The People of God Disciplined By Trials—Atonement By the Shedding of Blood—Our Heavenly Father—A Privilege Given to All the Married Sisters in Utah, Journal of Discourses, Volume 4

And Young again, in the same volume:

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, To Know God is Eternal Life—God the Father of Our Spirits and Bodies—Things Created Spiritually First—Atonement By the Shedding of Blood, Journal of Discourses, Volume 4

These were not private remarks dug up later by critics. The Journal of Discourses was published by the church's own printers and sold to its members. The full set of sermons that bear on the doctrine — including four more that state its premise and two that pull against it — is traced discourse by discourse in Blood atonement in the Journal of Discourses.

The premise underneath it

The doctrine rests on a claim that shows up far more often than the doctrine itself: that some sins — murder, denying the Holy Ghost — are beyond the atonement. That claim outlived the Reformation by decades. Heber C. Kimball in 1860:

If a man has shed innocent blood, he will have to pay the atonement, or he never can atone for his sin; therefore, at the day of judgment he will be judged according to men in the flesh, and condemned according to the law.

Heber C. Kimball, Greater Responsibilities of Those Who Know the Truth, &c, Journal of Discourses, Volume 7

George Q. Cannon was still teaching it in 1882, a quarter-century after the Reformation:

When a man sheds innocent blood a crime is committed by him, and he must atone for it either in this life or in the life to come. God will visit them in His own time and in His own way, until these things are atoned for. He will leave men and nations to themselves, when they abandon themselves to evil, and His spirit cannot abide with them.

George Q. Cannon, The Present Condition of the Saints—Their Past Trials—The Attempted Assassination of President Garfield, Etc, Journal of Discourses, Volume 22

Sermons like these get quoted as if they prescribe the remedy. They do not — they state the premise. The difference matters, because the premise survived every denial that follows, and some of the sharpest denials came from men who held it themselves.

The same pulpit, the other way

The Journal is not one voice. Heber C. Kimball — who taught that murder is beyond forgiveness — argued in 1859 that shedding blood needlessly offends God, reasoning from a revelation about killing animals:

If he is not well pleased with us when we shed the blood of beasts when we have no need of it, would it not be much more displeasing to him were we to shed the blood of man unnecessarily? It is not the Spirit of God that leads a man or woman to shed blood—to desire to kill and slay.

Heber C. Kimball, Shedding Blood—God's Provision for His Saints, Journal of Discourses, Volume 6

And in 1884, from the same stand, Charles W. Penrose denied the doctrine outright:

We read that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." Not my blood or your blood is to be shed for the remission of our sins; but He who was without sin allowed His blood to be shed as a sacrifice for our sins. Now the whole question hinges on that. If you reject the doctrine of proxy in baptism, you must reject the doctrine of proxy in the atonement.

Charles W. Penrose, The Church of Christ—Churches of Men—Conflicting Ideas—True Sources of Learning—Oneness Explained—Only One True Religion—"Probation After Death"—Ideas of Hell Changing—Different Degrees of Glory—Work for the Dead—Completeness and Simplicity of the Gospel, Journal of Discourses, Volume 24

1889: the declaration

The first formal denial came in December 1889, while the doctrine was being used against the church in court. During the crusade against polygamy, federal judges in Utah were hearing testimony that the church taught the killing of apostates, and citing it to deny Latter-day Saints citizenship and the vote. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve answered with an official declaration, signed by Wilford Woodruff and the church's senior leadership. It denied that the church taught or practiced blood atonement, said the church holds human life sacred, and said the church claims no right to punish anyone for apostasy or unbelief. That was thirty-three years after the sermons were preached, and one year before the same First Presidency issued the Manifesto on polygamy.

What Mormon Doctrine made of it

Seventy years after that declaration, Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine — the reference book on the shelf of a generation of Latter-day Saint homes — carried an entry headed Blood Atonement Doctrine. It denies the practice:

There is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, “Blood Atonement Doctrine”, p. 66

Then it affirms the doctrine:

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.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, “Blood Atonement Doctrine”, p. 66

The 1958 first edition went further. It had a Capital Punishment entry calling the death penalty part of the gospel itself — the sentence that connects the doctrine to the statute book, and to Utah's firing squad. The 1966 revision deleted that entry and kept this one. What was cut, what stayed, and what the difference means is in Capital punishment and blood atonement in Mormon Doctrine.

2010: the statement

In June 2010, Utah prepared to execute Ronnie Lee Gardner by firing squad — a method Utah offered condemned prisoners for over a century when no other state did, and one that is routinely read as a leftover of this teaching. The night before the execution, the church issued a statement, published in the Deseret News on June 18, 2010:

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.

Statement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 18, 2010

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.

Statement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 18, 2010

Where it stands

The church's current position, in the essay quoted at the top of this page, adopts historian Paul Peterson's reading: the blood atonement sermons were hyperbole or incendiary talk, likely designed to frighten church members into conforming with Latter-day Saint principles. The same footnote acknowledges that it is likely that in at least one instance, a few Latter-day Saints acted on this rhetoric.

Was anyone actually killed under the doctrine? On the narrow point, McConkie holds up: there was never a church court or procedure that sentenced anyone to die, and Utah in the 1850s had less violent crime than most of the frontier. But the record is not clean. In March 1857, at the height of the Reformation, William Parrish, his son Beason, and Duff Potter were killed at Springville as the Parrishes — apostates — prepared to leave Utah; testimony taken two years later implicated the town's bishop, and historian Polly Aird calls it the best-documented killing for apostasy of the period. And John D. Lee's 1877 confession describes a bishop's council voting death for Rasmus Anderson, a Danish convert accused of adultery, without letting him speak in his own defense. No one was ever convicted in either case, and how far up the responsibility ran is still argued. What the essay's footnote concedes in a clause, the sources spell out.

What is not disputed: the words were preached, printed, and sold by the church that later denied them, and a church reference book was still calling the underlying doctrine God's law in 1966. Both halves of the record are in the library — read them for yourself.