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

Oh, my!! Dear cjb,

HOW you came up with Matt. 26:52 having anything to do with the shed Blood of Jesus Christ being the ONLY acceptable sacrificial blood, from a Perfect Lamb, is quite amazing.

I took Hebrew at BYU in 1970-71 and haven't stopped studying and teaching it for 30 years. Words have meanings and you can't concoct your own translation. This scripture refers to those who live by the sword, will eventually die by it. Period.

Please read all the sermons and doctrinal teachings of Brigham before you try to equate his antithetical revelations on Blood Atonement with anything that Christ taught. Get some Journal of Discourses, some Church History and biographies of your beloved prophet and tell me exactly why he said that a man or woman might have to have their own blood shed for certain sins, "for which the Blood of Christ could not cover".

"The Unpardonable Sin" is a different issue. If you will reference every verse on Christ's atoning blood in the Bible: Is it sufficient for all sin?

Brigham is on one side and Jesus is on the other. Man's blood isn't perfect.


Certainly, we don't have all the answers, and some days I wonder if I have any answers other than Man must walk by faith and obtain personal spiritual confirmation on every subject. We all progress at different levels; that's the tricky part to speaking as a "prophet".Not all can understand at the same level at the same time. Be quick to forgive and slow to accuse, whether it be each other of the Lord's annointed. Being called the Lord's annointed does not make one perfect or all knowing.... but probably wiser than me.

Northern Lights

The same accusations against the Church on this message board has been used since the late 1800s. It is a false accusation. Church leaders have held a consistent view on this topic as far back as the 1902 General Conference. There is no change in Church doctrine or policy with this week's press announcement.

The highest punishment the LDS Church can impose on any of its members is excommunication. That's it. The power to take a life is reserved exclusively for the state which continues to exercise that right today.

Nor, having attended numerous wards throughout the world for many years have I heard this "doctrine" preached. It is none of the church manuals. I have never heard it discussed among members. Not a big deal for members, only for critics it seems.

Further, A topic mentioned in the Journal of Discourses doesn't make it doctrine. Nor, is the Journal of Discourses considered scripture.

As for why does God ever change His mind? Just ask Jonah what happened when he was in Ninevah. A fun story to think about.


re Grace | 1:50 a.m. June 19, 2010


Jesus was telling Peter, that if he killed another person, his own blood couldn't shield him from the penalty, he would have to pay for it with his own blood.

Perhaps not to you, but to me this sounds remarkably like what Brighan Young said, i.e. there are some sins which the blood of Jesus will not wash away, you have to pay for them yourself.

Perhaps I am interperting this wrong, or perhaps you are, but you "must" agree this is a reasonable interpertation, given the evidence or scripture that has been passed down to us.


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".


re Northern Lights | 8:24 a.m. June 19, 2010

1) Are conference talks considered scripture?

2) Are talks in the Journal of Discourses conference talks?


No cjb, that's called speculation, not interpretation. None of that episode even suggests atonement for salvation. Consistently throughout scripture (i.e., the Bible), those who die for their own sins also die the second death. You will search in vain to find anything otherwise.


CJB, "See Mt 26:52",also see Mark 14:43-50 and Luke 22:47-53, The synoptic Gospels on Jesus"s arrest, He was not leading a rebellion, He was teaching against vengeance. Jesus answered,"No more of this!And he touched the man's ear and healed him". (Luke 22:51)


I am very happy that your efforts to get closer to Jesus have brought you to a place where you feel the peace that can only come through Christ. I respect you, and agree much more with you than with most of my fellow LDS members. My personal search for Jesus has included questioning everything I was taught and studying much of what drove you from the church. In the end, that search has led me back to the LDS church, but now I'm a born-again Mormon. My conclusions include:
1. Prophets are fallible. Nobody ever said they weren't. Moses was. David was. Peter was. Brigham definitely was. ETB was. They try really hard, but they make mistakes. Hopefully,
they continue to lead us closer to a complete understanding of the simplicity of Christ's gospel, but we still aren't there.
2. Scriptures, revelations and prophets can all help us, but what matters most is our own discovery of the wonder of the infinite atonement, and our own personal relationship with Christ. That's the only thing that can save us.

Much more to say, but out of room.


I agree with what you say, he was against vengence, and he wasn't leading a rebellion. I also believe he had compassion on the soldier, who as a younger man had decided on a this as a career.

Jesus also took the occasion to give wisdom to Peter, telling his of the consequence he must suffer if he killed the soldier.

Though I agree with everything you have stated explicidly, I sense you disagree with my reasoning. You may disagree with me, thats okay. My purpose is not to get everyone to agree, my only purpose is state what I believe. That what Brigham Young said, is not in left field, scripture can be reasonably interperted to agree with his teachings.

If you choose to make a different interpertation, that is fine. There is probably no one scripture that everyone agrees on.

There are things I disagree with Brigham Young on, I disagree with his attitude on slavery, that he didn't care to lift a finger to do anything about it. I more agree with Joseph Smith, who wished in his heart, and stated that it would be done away with.


Only the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross of Calvary is the one and only true "blood atonement" that should concern all of us today.


Dear Fellow Believers in our Lord, Jesus Christ,

I feel the passion that many here have for the souls of all who come to share their beliefs and opinions. I appreciate the ability to communicate with "cyber-Christians". Truly, how amazing, and if only we could have clear conversations with past prophets, apostles and messengers!

God could arrange that, but He has chosen to leave us His Word. He knows we will debate it and search for the Truth. We do have so much more in common with respect to our beliefs, and to that end we each ask the Holy Spirit to guide us "unto all truth."

Jesus said if we love Him we are to make disciples, feed His sheep, be witnesses of Him and receive all power from the Holy Spirit". (Act 1:1- 10). There were disagreements from His ascension on. Maybe it's part of the process, but He also cautioned us of false teachings and to pray always.

My prayer is that all true seekers hear His voice and "rightly divide His Word. (2Tim.3) "Always be prepared to make a defense, yet ... with gentleness and reverence." (1Pet.3:15)

John Pack Lambert of Michigan

On p. 195-196 of Spencer W. Kimball's book "The Miracle of Forgiveness" he discussed the consequences of murder. It does not mention anything on the lines of blood atonement.

I would recomend anyone who wants to real understand this matter read Lowell M. Snow's article on Blood Atonement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. The full text of this article can be found on line.

The most central statement on the matter in this article is "this view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time".

This statement recently issue on blood atonement was not issued by the First Presidency because the Church has repeatedly stated that Blood Atonement is not a doctrine and that the Church has no official position on the death penalty.


John P.L. of Michigan,

Thank you for your references here. This has been the 20th century church position and I have the Doctrines of Salvation book, vol. 2 by Joseph Fielding Smith where he says the same things. However, he clarifies exactly which church leaders decided on capital punishment and why. I will submit his quote and refs later tonight.

I will also give you the refs for all of Brigham Young's teachings, and several of the General Authorities talks on Blood Atonement. What I will never understand is how the leaders can deny that certain topics were taught, when they have such excellent record-keeping archives for General Conference?

The problem for people who follow modern prophets, (who continually add to and change previous revelations), is that you have to remember what all your previous prophets taught. Then one day you need to write down all the changes from what used to be "God's Word" and what it is today and compare those to the history of the Bible.

It is also needful to list all the false prophecies and then use God's litmus test for false prophets. (Deut.18: 15- 22).


Grace dude, I'm not buying that you are former LDS.

Another Perspective

re John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 5:48 p.m. June 19, 2010


If nothing else, reading Pres Kimballs book the Miracle of Forgiveness will give a reader a perspective on Pres Kimballs take on things.

Not on Brigham Young's, but it will tell you what President Kimball thinks about the subject.

Another Perspective

to Grace

You sound like one of these "born again" Christians, am I correct?

If so, you believe that God is all powerful, he can do anything he wants, you believe that God is extremely loving, more so than can be imagined. You believe that if one happens to be born in a culture where Jesus is not the religious figure, and dies there without accepting Jesus, that he will consign that person to a hell of excruciating pain forever and ever.

Do you see the illogic of this situation? Do you see that the "born again" tradition which you apparently accept as true, paints God as being worse than Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin?

Do you see that in accepting this tradition, you have laid aside all logic and reason and you are a sheep of fables? Do you not agree that God gave you reasoning and common sense for a reason? Yet you choose to lay it aside and make God out to be not only a monster, but a creature of illogical and unexplainable paradoxes.


Dear UtahRez. There is nothing in BY's statement that supports bloold atonement. He simply used an example of how far a man would want to go to try and receive forgiveness. Nothing in that statement said the man has to do that to receive forgiveness. Life is the most precious thing a man can have on earth and Brigham was simply using that as a focus point to show the extent they might want to go.

Don't take quotes out of context to make your fallacious argument. I can do that with the bible also.
Don't read into something which is simply not there.


There is no "mercy or forgiveness" in putting an innocent being to death for any pretext whatever. And for the God (as a Father)to consent to the brutal assassination of his own innocent son (Jesus) upon the cross to gratify an implacable revenge toward his own children (humankind), the workmanship of his own hands, rather than forgive a moral weakness implanted in their natures by a voluntary act of his own, and for which consequently he alone ought to be responsible, would be nothing short of murder in the first degree.

When a debt is paid, it is canceled, and dismissed from memory, and nothing more said about it. But in this case the sinner is told he must still suffer the penalty for every sin he commits, notwithstanding Christ died to atone for and cancel that sin.

Where, then, is the virtue of the atonement? Like other nonsensical doctrines from ancient times, it is at war with reason and common sense, and every principle of sound morality, and will be marked by coming ages as a relic of barbarism from an ignorant past.


"A man-made foundation has to keep changing... Now do your own homework"

Grace and which Church of all the Christian denominations out there did you end up alinging with seeing as Churches are created upon a group of like minded followers interpretation of the bible, hence the reason for all the different Christan beliefs today. If there is one true gospel, explain all the Churches that claim to follow Christ’s word.

Thomas Jefferson

The entire idea that god had to impregnate the virgin mary to have a son to die for OUR sins that we have because adam and eve ate the fruit therby giving us sin is NOT an idea that makes sense in any way. The fact that so many people are POSITIVE that their way of worshiping this insecure and sometimes powerless god and the rest are doing it wrong makes as much sense, i.e. none.

If some omniscient god actually exists then I can see no way he would be as described in the 4000 year old book written by goat herders, nor the 1800 year old book written by a man who was starting a religion, nor the 180 year old book written by another man starting a religion based on the other books and a new one which conveniently made him in charge.

None of it makes ANY sense.

to comment

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