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
Wayne Rout

The trend of the Church to shift to the left continues.


The blood atonement and repentence go hand in hand
in order to take advantage of the blood atonement of Christ you must repent and make restituion and if that means the sheding of your own blood that is between you and the Lord If your sorrow is true you will be willing to pay the full price to avail your self of the atonement.


Well said, Grace. Your testimony is beautiful. And you understand Mormonism better than any of the members currently posting on here.

I would never disregard the apostles of the New Testament the way some of the Mormons on here are disregarding the "prophet" Brigham Young and their former "apostles." Either these Mormon leaders are false teachers inspired by the ruler of this world, or the members disregarding their words are bordering on unbelief. Either way is not very happy.

And btw, J-Pack Lambert, to say that apostles are in some way inferior to a prophet is nonsense-- study the New Testament and you will not find a government like the one used by the LDS Church. If anything, the apostles were the supreme authority in the 1st century.


I agree with John Pack Lambert. The vast majority of confusion discussed and/or criticized here can be resolved by people actually studying the source materials for themselves.

I did a bit of searching on the LDS church website, and found a devotional sermon by Gerald N. Lund, who served several years as a church general authority, entitled, "Is it revelation?" It is a common sense, straight forward set of advice on how to ascertain divine revelation from everything else.

I highly recommend it.


I hope that the issue of "Blood Atonement" is not going to become a huge deal with people who are trying to make a big deal out of nothing. We follow the LIVING PROPHET and no one else, what Brigham Young said about a certain matter may not be what President Thomas S. Monson may say about the same issue today. The issue of blood atonement is settled when the church issues an "official statement" on the matter as it has now done, that is the current teaching on this matter and that should settle it. The Journal of Discourses was never issued by the church officially as "doctrine" they were not intended to be accepted by the membership of the church as such. I would advise all memmbers of the church to rely on the LIVING PROPHET and THE SCRIPTURES and PRAYER and OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED STATEMENTS issued by the church as the source of guidance on matters that one does not fully understand, there is danger in wandering off the path into the darkness if one uses 'unauthorized sources" to seek for answers.


Once again, people are looking for anyway to distort LDS doctrine and try and make it look like they dont accept Christs atonement.

As I read the quote from Brigham Young, I interpret it as him saying that giving up your own life might be what is necessary to repent of the sin of murder. Christs atonement is sufficient to cover all sins but Christ still decides who he will forgive and who he wont. That is his judgment alone and is based on the repentance of the individual.

All things testify of Christ and no church teaches that more than LDS church.


Grace- I like your comments and they make sense to me. I am a struggling member and I seem to have hard time with the all the confusion on old church doctrine. The church history has just about done me in.


Seattleview: true that! Very well said.


to LDS Revelations: a statement by a LDS church leader is not doctrine simply because it is mistakenly understood that way.

Nevertheless, church leaders have through the years seen time and again that people can and will take their statements out of context, or even further than intended.

Such is often how the statements of Brigham Young are taken out of context, misconstrued, or just partially quoted, rather than the entire statement.

Yet, that is also a prime example of why modern prophets are so necessary--to dispel the confusion by spelling out what are the true doctrines of the church today, as well as to interpret the prior statements of Brigham Young.

What a living prophet says is more important and relevant to your life, than the statements by a dead one. That's why Mormons are led by living prophets, who are guided by the Lord's modern revelations.


Broken Clay

I revere Brigham Young; nothing I have said disrespects him.

Isn't what God says today to the world more specifically applicable to our lives, than what God said to ancient Israel?

Should we all then disregard Moses? No, we still learn of Moses and his teachings. Nevertheless, Christians do not live by the commandments within the Law of Moses. The commandments and practices within the Law of Moses are no longer required because our Lord Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice fulfilled all of the purposes and commandments within the Law of Moses. No more need for animal sacrifices to symbolize the Messiah's future sacrifice. Christ fulfilled all righteousness.

Christianity no longer regards Saturday as the sabbath. Ancient Israelites were commanded to observe the 7th day as the sabbath. Yet today, we observe the 1st day--Sunday--as the sabbath. Why is that? To remember Christ's sacrifice! God commanded Adam on down to ancient Israel to observe the 7th day sabbath to help them remember God's blessings of creation, and that God rested on the 7th day. After the Savior was resurrected, Christians began worshiping on Sunday, the 1st day of the week.


gonesking: Jesus fufilled the ceremonial law(animal sacrifice...etc) not the moral law,the ten commandments,they are still in effect, and Jesus takes them up a notch; The greatest commandments. Jesus said,Love you Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind,that is the first and greatest commanmdment and the second it to Love your neighbor as yourself,All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments. (Mt 22:37-39) If you love your neighbor you will not kill,covet or steal from him ...etc. Understanding the law should drive you to Christ.


goneskiing . . .

The New Covenant was enacted by Jesus' sacrifice in the first century . . . His sacrifice fulfilled the Old Covenant, and rendered many of its aspects obsolete.

Are we honestly supposed to believe that a change in priesthood for blacks due to the civil rights movement is on par with that? Or how about giving up that eternal blessing of polygamy just to gain temporal statehood? And denying blood atonement, though Brigham taught it as doctrine? There is a qualitative difference here. Societal pressures are not adequate grounds for changing revelation. And beside that, Christ said He came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it.

You will find nowhere in the New Testament that Sunday became the new Sabbath. Sunday is the Christian worship day, but it is never called the Sabbath. There are better explanations here.

Blood Atonement is in contradiction absolutely with what the New Testament teaches of Christ's atonement-- a read through of Hebrews shows this.

Orthodox Christianity will welcome with open arms those Latter-day Saints who become disillusioned with these kind of shenanigans.


@goneskiing- Have you actually read the Journal of Discourses? These statements that people have been referring to are hardly taken out of context. I guess you can see it the way Pres. Clinton did -"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". I guess you can take anything and justify or twist it to fit your beliefs.
Did BY teach this to the people? You bet he did. Was it wrong and horrible? Yep, even in his day it was wrong and horrible, just like many of the things he taught and said.


Zinnia, the problem is that the church has not been straightforward about its history. If it had been, there would not be all this confusion. But in an effort to appear perfect, the church has whitewashed its history, and this has backfired by making the church seem less than truthful.


I don't know if blood atonement was ever considered doctrine, but the idea that the atonement does not forgive murder has been taught for decades and decades.

The church considered those involved with abortion to be murderers. Wondering if that is still the case?

The church used to not allow convert baptism of people involved in abortions or other types of murders, because baptism could not lead to repentence for murder. Wondering if that is still the case?

The church used to excommunicate members involved in abortions or other types of murder. I wonder if that is still the case?

Wondering if the atonement works for all of these people???

Change, change, change. Cool!


I hope blood atonement is a false doctrine. However the fact that church leaders used to preach it, and not they don't anymore illustrates one obvious fact that many LDS church members are overlooking.

LDS church leadership can't be counted on to always be right about a particular subject. Just because LDS church leadership says something doesn't mean its true. They may be wrong.

If Brigham Young was right, then the church today is wrong. Likewise if the church today is right, then Brigham Young was wrong.

So lets not be afraid to use our own God given reasoning our own logic, and weigh what is said. I think the last thing God really wants is for people to cease to think for themselves and for them to let someone else do their thinking for them.


Jesus himself taught blood atonement.

see Matthew 26:52. "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword".

Obviously that doesn't happen in this life to all those who murder, however for those who believe in future lives, this prophesy of Jesus still has room to be fulfilled.

So we have Brigham Young and Jesus on one side of the argument, and LDS church and most other christian denominations on the other side.


apache1: the only reason Blood Atonement is a big deal here is because it was church doctrine, taught by all the general authorities and has tons of authentic source documents. Homework time.

Where did you hear that the JDs were not church doctrine? Where do you think those sermons were given? Who do you think the audience was? How many of them have you read? They were carefully transcribed, sent out by God's Prophet and Seer, Brigham Young,to "all the world", and shipped in crates to England. Read his statement in the Forward.

Try to wrap your mind around the Salt Lake tabernacle filled to over-flowing, with pioneers who had sacrificed the lives of their loved ones crossing the plains from Winter Quarters, and sitting eagerly at the feet of their revered Prophet. My ancestors gave every penny and every ounce of love and devotion to follow every word that came from that pulpit and no one debated what was said, more less what was published.

After you read what your founding prophets taught at General Conference as God's direct commandments, teachings and revelations, ask yourself why your God changes His mind so often?


zinnia dear,

I'm praying that you will find peace and truth. Jesus is total Peace and ultimate Truth. You know the scripture where He said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Ask Him to clear up any confusion you might have. He promises He will to all who truly seek Him.

Just keep faithful to where the Holy Spirit leads you, and keep asking for guidance along the way. It's a simple and beautiful journey. If you're on the right track, you'll feel His strong leading. But be warned- you will become so infatuated with everything about Jesus that you won't be able to put down God's Word!

Read John 10 slowly and deeply for a radical uplift: He's everything from the Door to the Bread to the Light!

But my favorite is to read John 1:1-14, because of His promise in v.12: "But to all who received Him, He gave the power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God."

His sheep hear His voice!



where did you get this weird doctrine? 'Cuz it ain't from the Bible, my friend. You can search and you will NEVER find anything that says your own shed blood will bring you any kind of salvation, glorification, or exaltation.

You may have to pay for a life you take with your own blood (Mosaic law), but Christ's blood is the only acceptable blood for God's required sacrifice, right? You have read the New Testament reason, I assume: Christ's Blood is the ONLY Blood from a Perfect Sacrifice.

He is the Perfect Lamb of God. That's why the Apostle Paul calls "all other gospels, than the one we gave you" to be doctrines of demons. The law won't save you, (Romans and Galations), Gnostic wisdom and special powers are false teachings (Jude and 2 Peter 2), Grace and Faith bring you into relationship with Christ, which will give you a spiritual birth and produce true fruit/works (Ephesians and James) and Christ is "above all and has created all" (Colossians).

That's why ANYONE creating a doctrine that your blood can cover any sins is purely heretical, non-Biblical, and man-made.

to comment

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