Comments about ‘Mormon church statement on blood atonement’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, June 18 2010 12:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

It is sad to me to see how many Latter-day Saints there are who still teach and embrace the doctrine of blood atonement, totally disregarding the statements of their church leaders. Truly sad.


Not Doctrine? “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. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong DOCTRINE; but it is to save them, not to destroy them” (Brigham Young, September 21, 1856, Journal of Discourses 4:53).


I'm glad that the LDS church changed its mind about "blood atonement." It shows that a church can recognize its mistakes and continue to grow in understanding.


If this isn't doctrine then why did prophets like Brigham Young and Joseph Feilding Smith teach it. It is even referenced in the Journal of Discources (which were said by other prophets to be like scripture) and the Doctrines of Salvation. Do prophets teach false things? I'm confused......


I'm glad that's the churches statement. I allready felt that way. There's no benefit but gardner felt he was going to be free and felt sorry and repentant.


Oh I am also glad they don't still believe it. But I'm just confused as to what the LDS are supposed to believe and when? Is what we believe today to be doctrine going to be disreguarded years down the road? The teachings of the church can change with the changing of the times but the doctrines are forever. Doctrines don't change, unless you think God readily changes his mind.


LDS Church leaders, at times, share their personal opinions, which are not intended as official statements of church doctrine or policy. LDS Church official doctrines and policies are distributed through official channels, i.e. general conference broadcasts, church magazines, etc. Unless made through official channels, my opinion is that what a church leader says is simply statements of personal expression or opinion.

LDS church volunteers, such as the bishop mentioned in the news story, visit with and minister to inmates of various faiths or no faith at all. No information is available--as far as I know--regarding the particulars of RLG's religion.



For me, the issue is rather simple. I don't know whether God changes his mind, but I know there are some inconsistencies between what Old Testament prophets taught the Jews and what Christ taught his followers in the New Testament. I know there are similar inconsistencies between the teachings of Brigham Young and those of Spencer W. Kimball or Gordon B. Hinckley. Do these represent changes in God's law to adapt to changing times, or improvements in man's (or prophets') understanding of God's law? I'm not sure it matters. Unlike other religions, the LDS Church does not profess that its leaders, even its prophets, are infallible. They are men, very good men, who are doing the best they can to understand and communicate the will of God. I'm glad we have them. It is important for us to be constantly studying and refining our understanding of what God expects of us. I think that's what prophets do, and I know that's what I should do.


"for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do"


When Christ was on the cross, he abstained from saving himself as well as the miscreants hanging with him, any other words to say?


goneskiing - then how do we know when our leaders are speaking as men or as reps of jesus? They don't preface ANYTHING with "now this is just me thinking outloud here, but...."


From the Book of Mormon, read it and maybe you won't need 'clarifications'?
Alma 34:
11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another....12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world...13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.


RE: Heathjh, "If this isn't doctrine then why did prophets like Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith teach it?"

Much that was the OPINIONS of men (verses actual doctrine) was part of the discourse of many men, prophets included.

I appreciate the efforts the Church has been making the last few years to differentiate the two--and to issue clearly worded statements to help us see the difference.


People should be very careful not to read into this statement, from the church, things that are not there. The church did not say that RLG should not be executed. They did not say that the death penalty should not be used. It appears that they were simply makeing it clear that the church has never beleived that a person can atone for their own sins. This is not something new. The church's official doctrine has always taught that Christ is the only one who can atone for anyone's sins.


Brigham Young taught polygamy. So is it still the doctrine of the Church?

When the administration of justice is perfect, maybe we revisit blood atonement. Until then, leave it to the man upstairs. The Church is right on this.


Why all the fuss? The statement is as straightforward as it can possibly get. It is also how I have always understood blood atonement (so absolutely no surprises for me). The statements made in the 1850s by Brigham Young and others need to be understood in the context of the times. (As should ALL statements of God's prophets, ancient or modern.)


Anyone who understands LDS doctrine (as Brigham Young obviously did) knows that a person cannot "atone" for their own sins, but they can take steps by being "willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground" to help in seeking forgiveness from the Savior.


I am sorry that some of you are confused. Those who are fully committed are not confused, but understand that eternal progression includes our time here on the earth, not just after this life.

I hope we all continue to progress in our understanding of the principles of the Gospel.


Judgement day is going to open so many eyes


"...And the blood of Jesus, Christ His Son cleanseth us from 'all' sin."(1John 1:7)
"much more then,being now justified by his(Jesus) blood,we shall be saved from wrath through him (Romans 5:9)
The Bible versus the Mormonism.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments