Conference tecrus::mormonism

    This will be a section that I too will cover in my report in note
    38.  As someone in 50 asked, "are there documents to support this?"
    
    You bet.  Also, how does one go about getting a complete copy of
    the Journal of Discources?  I have copies of parts of it, but not
    a complete set.
    
    Thanks!
    
    Leza

The information I have will take several replies.  In this reply, I will briefly
discuss the Atonement of Jesus Christ in which his blood cleanses us from sin.
I will then give a letter written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie.  Finally, I will
discuss statements made by early leaders of the Church.


The Atonement of Jesus Christ
----------------------------

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that forgiveness of
sin comes only through the blood of Jesus Christ.  This is taught very
forcefully in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon and has been discussed in
detail in various replies to note 4.

From the Bible:

    Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things,
    as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from
    your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without
    blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation
    of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
    (1 Peter 1:18-20)

    In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
    according to the riches of his grace; (Ephesians 1:7)

    And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten
    of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.  Unto him that loved
    us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (Revelation 1:5)

From the Book of Mormon:

    For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen
    by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God
    concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.  And even if it were
    possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say
    unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall,
    even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins. (Mosiah 3:11,16)

    Now Aaron began to open the scriptures unto them concerning the coming of
    Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that their
    could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and
    sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood.  (Alma 21:9)

    And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed.  And,
    behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb
    of God their garments are made white in his blood.  (1 Nephi 12:10)

We do not understand *why* the blood of Jesus Christ had to be shed in order for
our sins to be forgiven.  I was asked that question one day by an agnostic
friend,  "Why", he said, "did Jesus have to shed his blood.  Why couldn't it
have been some other act such as a special prayer or a ritual of some kind."
My answer was, "I do not know why Christ had to shed blood rather than perform
some other act, because the scriptures don't give the 'why'.  I accept it on
faith."

This principle of atonement for our sins through the blood of Jesus Christ is
central to the Christian religion.

                   THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

                              The Council of the Twelve
               47 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
                                  October 18, 1978

          Mr.  Thomas B.  McAffee
          Utah Law Review, College of Law
          The University of Utah
          Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

          Dear Mr.  McAffee:

               This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1978, to
          President Spencer W.  Kimball of the Church of Jesus Christ of
          Latter-day Saints in which you asked some questions about the
          so-called doctrine of blood atonement.  I have been asked by
          President Kimball and by the First Presidency to respond to your
          inquiries.

               You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some
          of our early church leaders have said and written about this
          doctrine and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an
          official doctrine of the Church today.

               If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of
          Christ, the answer is Yes.  If by blood atonement is meant the
          shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own
          sins, the answer is No.

               We believe that the blood of Christ, shed in the Garden of
          Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary, cleanses all men from sin
          on condition of repentance.  As expressed by a Book of Mormon
          scripture:  "Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and
          through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."
          (Mosiah 3;18.)

               We do not believe that it is necessary for men in this day
          to shed their own blood to receive a remission of sins.  This is
          said with a full awareness of what I and others have written and
          said on this subject in times past.

               In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C.
          Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must
          mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ
          alone does not cleanse a person.  These include blasphemy against
          the Holy Ghost (as defined by the Church) and that murder which
          is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice.  However,
          and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been
          given to the Church at any time in this dispensation.  It has no
          application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member
          or a non-member of the Church.



          Mr.  Thomas B.  McAffee
          October 18, 1978
          Page 2

               There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of
          blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any
          other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for
          sins.  Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this
          doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of
          Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the
          ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses.  From the
          day of Joseph Smith to the present there has been no single
          instance of so-called blood atonement under any pretext.

               Anything I have written or anything said by anyone else must
          be understood in the light of the foregoing limitation.  Brigham
          Young and the others were speaking of a theoretical principle
          that operated in ages past and not in either their or our day.
          As I recall, Brigham Young's illustrations were taken from the
          day of Moses and the history of ancient Israel and could not be
          applied today.

               There is no such a doctrine as blood atonement in the Church
          today nor has there been at any time.  Any statements to the
          contrary are either idle speculations or pure fantasy.  It is
          certainly not the current teaching of the Church and I have never
          in over 60 years of regular church attendance heard a single
          sermon on the subject or even a discussion in any church class.

               You asked if the statements of our leaders of the past,
          including those found in the Journal of Discourses, represent the
          official stand of the Church.  The answer, as indicated in the
          comments above set forth, is that they do not.  The statements
          pertain to a theoretical principle that has been neither revealed
          to nor practiced by us.

               If by blood atonement is meant capital punishment, then any
          proper analysis of the subject would call the matter by the name
          capital punishment and not by the name blood atonement.  To use
          this latter term is wholly misleading and stirs up the idea that
          we believe in that which we most emphatically do not believe.

               We believe in capital punishment.  In a revelation to Joseph
          Smith, on February 9, 1831, the Lord said:  "And now, behold, I
          speak unto the church.  Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills
          shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to
          come.  And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth
          shall die." (D & C.  42:18-19.)

               In answering some false and scurrilous charges published
          against the Latter-day Saints, the President of the Church, who
          then was Wilford Woodruff, on January 9, 1891, wrote to the



          Mr.  Thomas B.  McAffee
          October 18, 1978
          Page 3

          editor of the Illustrated American.  President Woodruff referred
          to the doctrine herein being considered as "the blood atonement
          fiction," and as "the false theory of blood atonement copied by
          the writer in the American from old newspaper fiction."

               Then he recites what the doctrine of the Church is when the
          term blood atonement is used simply as a synonym for capital
          punishment.

               "It is a fundamental doctrine of our creed that a murderer
          cannot be forgiven; that he 'hath not eternal life abiding in
          him'; that if a member of our Church, having received the light
          of the Holy Spirit, commits this capital crime, he will not
          receive forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come.  The
          revelations of God to the Church abound in commandments
          forbidding us to shed blood."

               With specific reference to capital punishment as practiced
          by the State and not the Church he said:  "It is part of our
          faith that the only atonement a murdered can make for his 'sin
          unto death' is the shedding of his own blood, according to the
          fiat of the Almighty after the flood:  'Whoso sheddeth man's
          blood by man shall his blood be shed.' But the law must be
          executed by the lawfully appointed officer.  This is 'blood
          atonement,' so much perverted by maligners of our faith.  We
          believe also in the atonement wrought by the shedding of Christ's
          blood on Calvary; that it is efficacious for all the race of Adam
          for the sin committed by Adam, and for the individual sins of all
          who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and
          who receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of authorized hands.
          Capital crime committed by such an enlightened person cannot be
          condoned by the Redeemer's blood.  For him there is 'no more
          sacrifice for sin'; his life is forfeit, and he only can pay the
          penalty.  There is no other blood atonement taught, practiced or
          made part of the creed of the Latter-day Saints."

               I repeat:  Except for the atonement of Christ, which is or
          should be a part of the creeds of all Christian churches; and
          except for the use of the term "blood atonement" as a
          synonym--nothing more--of "capital punishment" where
          "enlightened" members of the Church are concerned, there is no
          such doctrine in this dispensation as blood atonement.

               I have in my file a letter dated February 12, 1971, signed
          by Presidents Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee as and for
          the First Presidency which shows that the theoretical principle
          of blood atonement has no application in any dispensation when
          there is a separation of Church and State.  They refer to the
          death of Christ by Jewish hands as a "capital crime," and then
          quote the following from the third chapter of Acts:



          Mr.  Thomas B.  McAffee
          October 18, 1978
          Page 4

               "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it,
          as did also your rulers . . .

               "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may
          be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the
          presence of the Lord;

               "And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached
          unto you."

               Then they say:  "From the above it is understood that this
          is a matter which must be left in the hands of the Lord, not for
          man to determine."

               Now, as to your final question--whether blood atonement,
          "if" it is "a valid doctrine" would have any affect on the mode
          of imposing the death penalty, I need only say:

              1.  Since there is no such thing as blood atonement, except
                  as indicated above, the mode of execution could have no
                  bearing on the matter of atoning for one's sins; and

              2.  If we are speaking simply of capital punishment (and
                  falsely calling it blood atonement), still I can see no
                  reason for supposing that it makes the slightest
                  difference how an execution is accomplished.


               As far as I can see there is no difference between a firing
          squad, an electric chair, a gas chamber, or hanging.  Death is
          death and I would interpret the shedding of man's blood in legal
          executions as a figurative expression which means the taking of
          life.  There seems to me to be no present significance as to
          whether an execution is by a firing squad or in some other way.
          I, of course, deleted by article on "hanging" from the Second
          Edition of Mormon Doctrine because of the reasoning here
          mentioned.

               As far as I am concerned you are at liberty to quote from or
          use this letter in any way you deem proper.

                                        Sincerely,

                                          /s Bruce R. McConkie

                                        Bruce R. McConkie


          BRM:va

[This letter is a "facsimile" of a photocopy of the letter]

In 38.6, Leza quoted Brigham Young as saying that thieves should be killed,
the context of her statement being that Brigham was saying that the thieves
should shed their blood to atone for their sins.  Lets take a closer look
at what Brigham was actually saying.  The reference for the quotations
given below is Journal of Discourses 1:103-111.

In his sermon, given on May 8, 1853 in the Tabernacle, Brigham discussed
the problems they were having with the Indians.


Brigham's Sermon
----------------

    Previous to my starting from this city, there was an express sent
    from Iron county, that Indian Walker manifested hostile feelings; for it
    seems he had drawn out his men on a small portion of our brethren, and
    commanded them to return home, when they were in pursuit of supposed
    thieves; these Indians would not suffer them to proceed any further.

    This circumstance, small as it might appear to some, caused suspicion in
    my mind that all was not right with the Indian chief, though I expected
    to visit him on my journey. (p. 104)

    I have heard a great many different stories since I came home, and find
    the minds of the people very much agitated about the probable result of
    the hostilities of the Indians, and the presence of the Mexicans among
    them. (p. 105)

    The Indians are very much as they say the whites are, that is,
    uncertain--not to be trusted.  The whites may be uncertain, but I know
    the Indians are.  I dislike to trust them far.  I never wish to be injured,
    nor have this people injured by Indian depredations, committed upon them;
    and if the Saints will do as they are told, they will never suffer from
    that in our Territory.

    Take up the history of the first settling of America, and you cannot read
    of a colony ever being settled in the midst of savages, without having
    trouble, and suffering more from them than this people have in Utah.  What
    is the reason?  It is because those people did not know how to take care
    of themselves.  We can scarcely read of one colony founded among the
    aborigines in the first settling of this country, wherein the tomahawk
    of wild Indians did not drink the blood of whole families.  Here there
    have been no such deeds committed; because when we first entered Utah,
    we were prepared to meet all the Indians in these mountains, and kill
    every soul of them if we had been obliged so to do.  This preparation
    secured to us peace.

    Every settlement that have been made in these valleys of the mountains, 
    have received strict charges from me, to build, in the first place, a
    Fort, and live in it until they were sufficiently strong to live in a
    town; to keep their guns and ammunition well prepared for any emergency;
    and never cease to keep up a night watch, if any apprehensions of the
    Indians being hostile were entertained.  We have suffered nothing from
    them, compared with what we have suffered from white men who are disposed
    to steal; and I would rather take my chance to-day for good treatment
    among Indians, than I would among white men of this character. (p. 105)

    I have always acknowledged myself a coward, and hope I always may be,
    to make me cautious enough to preserve myself and my brethren from falling
    ignobly by a band of Indians.  I am satisfied that the men who follow
    Walker, who is the king of the Indians in these mountains, do it out of
    fear, and not because they have real regard for their leader.  If he becomes
    hostile, and wishes to commit depredations upon the persons or property of
    this people, he shall be wiped out of existence, and every man that will
    follow him.  this is my calculation, and I wish you to be ready for it.
    (p. 106)

Brigham went on to explain that the Indians were Lamanites, of the house of
Israel, and were the children of Abraham.  If, he said, the Saints had
sufficient faith, they would not be bothered by the Indians.  He expressed
concern that the Saints did not have such faith, and he thus felt the Saints
should be prepared against Indian attacks.

    Never permit yourself to sleep in your houses until your doors are made
    perfectly secure, that the Indians cannot come in and kill you in your
    sleep. (p. 107)

    I have prayed many times, and had a man at the door to watch for the
    murderer who thirsted for my blood.  Then he would pray, and I would watch.
    (p. 107)

    If you wish to know what you must do hereafter, I will tell you in a few
    words--keep your powder, and lead, and your guns in good order.  Go about
    your work, plough your fields, work in your mechanic shops, and be ready
    in the morning, at noon, or in the night, that whenever you are called
    upon, you can put your hand upon your musket and ammunition at the shortest
    notice.  "Be ye also ready, for in an hour you think not behold the thief
    comes," and takes away your horse from your stable.

    How many complaints have been made to me by men who have had their horses
    stolen out of their stables, or out of their carals, or of clothes being 
    taken from the line.  The reason why people lose their property is because
    they do not watch it.  Have I ever complained of any such thing?  No!
    Why?  Because I watch my caral.  Do I lose anything out of my barn.  No.
    because I lock it up, and keep somebody there to watch it.  Do I lose any
    clothing?  Not that I know of.  I tell my folks not to leave out their
    clothing.  "Why," they ask, "is their any danger of their being stolen?"
    It is none of your business, they will not dry after dark, therefore
    take them in, and hang them out again in the morning.  That is the way to
    live, and this is what I wish to say to you concerning these matters,
    that your minds may be at peace.  All will be peace this summer, if you will
    keep on watching. (p. 108)


The Controversial Statement
---------------------------

In this context, then, of Indian attacks and thefts, Brigham made the statement
given by Leza, although she left out some important parts.  The full statement
by Brigham is given below; in the sermon it immediately followed the paragraph
just quoted above.

    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.
    That is what I expect I shall do, though never, in the days of my life,
    have I hurt a man with the palm of my hand.  I never have hurt any person
    any other way except with this unruly member, my tongue.  Notwithstanding
    this, 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.

    I know this appears hard, and throws a cold chill over our revered 
    traditions received by early education.  I had a great many such feelings
    to contend with myself, and was as much of a sectarian in my notions as any
    other man, and as mild, perhaps, in my natural disposition, but I have
    trained myself to measure things by the line of justice, to estimate them
    by the rule of equity and truth, and not by the false tradition of the
    fathers, or the sympathies of the natural mind.  If you will cause all those
    whom you know to be thieves, to be placed in a line before the mouth of one
    of our largest cannon, well loaded with chain shot, I will prove by my works
    whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not.  I would consider it
    just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of
    his sins.  That is a short discourse on thieves, I acknowledge, but I tell
    you the truth as it is in my heart. (p. 108-109)


Discussion
----------

The threats to the pioneers of Indian attack were real.  I remember my
grandmother telling of Indian massacres in which the Indians would take small
babies by the legs and bash their heads against the cabin wall.  Brigham felt
that by showing a strong hand against the Indians when necessary, they would
have fewer problems because the Indians respected strength.

His concern for thievery was part of the Indian problem, because the Indians
were the main persons who were stealing.  The loss of personal property was
serious, because they did not have many material things.  The railroad had not
yet entered Utah.  The pioneers were poor and had to make do with what they
brought with them or could manufacture themselves.

In advocating that thieves be killed, he was not advocating a form of "blood
atonement", nor was he advocating murder.  His statement given above makes
it clear that he was advocating capital punishment for thievery.

    but I have trained myself to measure things by the line of justice, to
    estimate them by the rule of equity and truth, and not by the false
    tradition of the fathers, or the sympathies of the natural mind.  If you
    will cause all those whom you know to be thieves, to be placed in a line
    before the mouth of one of our largest cannon, well loaded with chain shot,
    I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or
    not. 

I think that none of us would advocate capital punishment for thievery today,
but we have to realize that Brigham lived under very different conditions, and
he felt that that punishment was fitting for the crime.

There is nothing in the sermon that concerns the shedding of the blood of
thieves as an atonement.  Instead, Brigham was discussing a form of "frontier
justice", albeit capitol punishment, for thievery.

We also need to make note of the fact that the Mormons in Utah had a reputation
of being law abiding people, and I don't think that they took Brigham's comments
literally and became a vigilante society.

During the early Utah period, the Church experienced a movement in which
Church leaders attempted to get the members to renew their allegiance to
God and to purify themselves through more righteous living.  This movement
is known in LDS history as "the Reformation".  A knowledge of the "Reformation"
pertains to this note because it provided the background to the statements
made by Church leaders concerning blood atonement.  B. H. Roberts has given the
following description of the "Reformation" (A Comprehensive History of the
Church, volume IV).

                                 ***

The "Reformation" was doubtless a much needed moral and spiritual awakening.
It must be remembered that for a number of years the Latter-day Saints had not
lived under normal conditions.

From the exodus from Nauvoo, in 1846, up to the "Reformation" in 1856--ten
years--there had been much of camp life, and of frontier life, in both of
which there was much moving about, unrest, absence of settled conditions 
everywhere, all of which made it difficult to establish regularity of life and
to enforce discipline.  Again, also, I call attention to the fact that the men
who were the leaders in the New Dispensation were largely of Puritan stock
and training; and although they had become men of the mountains and the
plains--men of the frontier wilderness--still at bottom they were men of very
deep and very sincere religious convictions--religious convictions that demanded
striving for absolute righteousness, and that did not look upon sin, in itself,
with any degree of allowance.  "Be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven
is perfect," represented a principle and was an admonition of the Christ
accepted by them, and emphasized into possibility of achievement, when rightly
understood, by the philosophy and the ethics of the New Dispensation.  When,
therefore, these leaders saw moral disorders about them, and increasing
lack of habitual reverence for sacred things--for the Sabbath day, for example,
so often infringed in their forced marches, in their fighting crickets and
grasshoppers, and meeting the exigencies of the irrigation system of farming;
which, to raise and sometimes to preserve a crop, often forced the use of the
water upon the Lord's day upon some of the community.  Neglect of prayer by
some "in the time and season thereof," was doubtless an outgrowth of the
irregularity of their lives.  So, too, a carelessness in respect of individual
property rights.  Often necessity forced the use of range cattle for
food supplies, and the exigency of forced journeys, the use of work cattle,
and other team stock, not always with the consent of the owners--and yet
without intent of stealing; said uses of property springing from that sense
of community feeling which had so often regarded all the means or resources of
the community as available in order to carry to successful conclusion any
individual enterprise of importance--so interwoven were individual and
community interests in the period here under consideration.

But while this community use of property was not evil intended in itself, it
did make easy to those so inclined that habit of trespassing upon the
property rights of others that, speaking plainly, can only be called theft....

The "Reformation" began at a conference at Kaysville, in Davis county, held
on the 13th of September, continuing through four days; President Jedediah
M. Grant [counselor to Brigham Young], Joseph Young, of the first council of the
seventy, and William Willes, recently returned from his protracted mission in
India, being the most prominent factors; Brother Willes contributing much to
the awakening of religious fervor by singing soul-stirring songs, one in
particular, through which ran the refrain--

    "The Saints will nobly do their duty"

On the third day 500 people renewed all their religious obligations in the
act of baptism, 80 of whom were baptized by Elder Grant himself.

The "Reformation" proposed went chiefly to the practical affairs in life.
According to the minutes of the meeting published at the time, the text
of Elder Grant's first discourse and exhortation in the movement was supplied by
Brigham Young:

    "Saints, live your religion."

Such the text; the speaker urged that the saints hold sacred their baptismal
covenants: "observing cleanliness in their persons, and dwellings, setting
their families in order, carefully cultivating their farms and gardens, and not
to feel so anxious to have more land that they could not attend to themselves;
to gather into and build up the fort and settlement; and concluded by praying
that all those who did not feel to do right might have their way opened to leave
the people and territory of Utah, and that those who did not come forward and
do their first works, [i.e. renew religious obligations by baptism], let them
be unto you as heathen men and publicans, and not numbered among the saints."

In this passage the keynote of the "Reformation" is struck; and save only for
what some might regard as a hint of intolerance in the closing lines, its
purposes were wholly commendable.

This first "Reformation" meeting was followed by others during the same week
at Farmington, in the same county, continuing three days, resulting in 406
persons renewing their religious obligations by baptism.  The meetings were of
the same general character as those held in Kaysville.

By Sunday, the 21st of September, the "Reformation" had reached Salt Lake City;
and in the two meetings held in the "Old Tabernacle" that day, President
Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball as well as President Grant participated in
the enthusiasm of the occasion, and from thence the work of reform and the
renewal of religious obligations and covenants by the impressive sign of
baptism, extended throughout all the settlements of Utah, and to all the
branches and conferences and missions of the church.  That much good was
accomplished; that a spiritual awakening in the church was effected may not be
doubted.  Also it must be admitted, as in nearly all such movements, and times
of special manifestations of religious zeal, there were many extreme things
suggested, and some unwarranted interpretations of the scriptures, and many
ill-advised things said which, when measured by the spirit of the gospel of
Jesus Christ, are found wanting, especially on the side of patience, and
forbearance, and mercy.  In some of its aspects this "reform" movement
resembled more in spirit the severe justice and retribution of the old Mosaic
law than the spirit of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (pp. 119-120, 124-126)

(continuing with B. H. Roberts)

Among the things to be regretted in connection with the "Reformation," and from
which the church has suffered much, through misapprehension of her real attitude
in respect of the matters involved, are certain extreme and unqualified 
utterances of some of the leading elders of the church on what it has become
custom to call "blood atonement;" by which is meant, as commonly represented by
anti-"Mormon" writers, a claimed right on the part of the church to shed the
blood of men guilty of heinous crimes, such as murder, adultery, and apostasy;
and which, since such acts may not be done openly, and by legal authority vested
in the church, then secretly, by assassination.

That there are crimes for which the law of God prescribed capital punishment;
and which, under the union of the spiritual and temporal power--under the
blending of civil and religious authority in the old state-theocratic
government of ancient Israel existed--may not be denied.  As for example, in
the case of murder, the law given to Noah and his posterity was: "At the hand
of every man's brother will I require the life of men.  whoso sheddeth man's
blood, by man shall his blood be shed." [Genesis 9:5-6]  This law was carried
over into the Mosaic polity; and the list of crimes enlarged to include capital
punishment for assault of children upon parents; for stealing men and selling
them into slavery; for witchcraft; for beastiality; for idolatry; for violating
the Sabbath day; for adultery. [See Exodus 20, 21, 31 and Leviticus 24.  Also
Leviticus 20, cf. Matthew 15:1-9; John 8:3-12]  Capital punishment, however, in
ancient Israel, was not left to be executed by irresponsible individuals, and
at their caprice.  It was sternly regulated by law and executed by legally
designated agencies.  There are sins enumerated also in the New Testament for
which it is said there is no forgiveness.  "No murderer hath eternal life
abiding in him," saith St. John [1 John 3:15]  "Who so speaketh against the
Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in
the world to come." [Matthew 12:32]  "He that shall blaspheme against the
Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness," is the more impressive declaration of
St. Mark, "but is in danger of external damnation." [Mark 3:28-29]

"It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the
heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the
good word of god, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away,
to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son
of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." [Hebrews 6:4-6]

It is very clear that other New Testament writers recognized a "sin unto death:"
"If any man," said St. John, "see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death,
he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. 
There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."
[1 John 5:16]  "For," as declares the writer to the Hebrews, "if we sin wilfully
after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  He that despised Moses' law
died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment,
suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of
God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, 
an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"
[Hebrews 10:26-29]

It follows as logical conclusion in such cases as are here enumerated that the
matter stands with them as if no atonement of the Christ had been made, and
they themselves must pay the penalty of their sins.  "The life of the flesh,"
said Moses, is in the blood; "and I have given it to you upon the altar to make
an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for
the soul." [Leviticus 17:11]

It may, of course, be urged that reference is here made to the blood of beasts
and birds appointed to be slain in sacrifice; and that their blood, typifying
the blood of the Christ, which would be shed for remission of sin, was given to
ancient Israel to make atonement for their souls; and it is true, as Paul said
of the law, "almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without
the shedding of blood is no remission." [Hebrews 9:22]  But if, as seems to be
the case, from the foregoing considerations, there are certain limitations to
vicarious atonement, even to the vicarious atonement of the Christ, then these
ancient laws proclaiming that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and that
"the blood maketh an atonement for the soul," make plain what is needful for
the salvation of the soul where one's sins place him beyond the reach of
vicarious means of salvation--then it is the shedding of the sinners own blood
that must here be referred to. [footnote 41: Not, however,--as I have already
urged in preceding pages--by the church; certainly not by individuals taking
it upon themselves to be the ministers of God's vengeance; for then they
themselves would become murderers....therefore must this matter of
retribution for sin be left with God and those agencies that he shall ordain to
encompass it.  These, in part, are the secular governments in whose polities 
capital punishments are provided for some of the more heinous crimes against
society and government...]  Paul evidently recognized such cases as these;
for in referring to one who had been guilty of such sin as is not so much as
named among the Gentiles, "that one should have his father's wife," he said:

    "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged
    already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done
    this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered
    together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to
    deliver such an one unto Satan 'for the destruction of the flesh, that
    the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.'"
    [1 Corinthians 5:1-5]

Here then is the doctrine taught that by "destruction of the flesh," there is 
hope that "the spirit might be saved, in the day of the Lord Jesus."  And
no one can say that Brigham Young went beyond this when he said--and this is
one of the offensive passages so frequently quoted against him by anti-"Mormon"
writers:

    "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
    ascent to heaven as an offering for their sins;" [JD 4:53]

The doctrine of "blood atonement," then, is based upon the scriptural laws
considered in the foregoing paragraphs.  The only point at which complaint
may be justly laid in the teaching of the ":Reformation" period is in the
unfortunate implication that the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or
individuals in that church, may execute this law of retribution.  Fortunately,
however, the suggestions seemingly made in the overzealous words of some of
these leading elders were never acted upon.  The church never incorporated
them into her polity.  Indeed, it would have been a violation of divine
instruction given in the New Dispensation ad the church attempted to establish
such procedure.  As early as 1831 the law of the Lord was given to the
church as follows:

    "And now, behold, I speak unto the church: Thou shalt not kill; and
    he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the
    world to come.

    And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die....
    and it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you shall kill,
    they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the
    land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and it shall be proven
    according to the laws of the land." [D & C 62:18-19,79]

The same disposition was directed to be made with reference to those who should
rob, steal, or lie. that is, they should be delivered up to be dealt with
"according to the laws of the land." [D & C 62:84-86]  Those who committed
adultery, and repented not, were to be cast out.

A few months later, August, 1831, the Lord said in connection with the purchase
of lands in Jackson county:

    "Satan putteth it into their hearts [i.e. the hearts of the Missourians]
    to anger against you, and to the shedding of blood; wherefore the land of
    Zion, shall not be obtained but by purchase or by blood, otherwise there
    is none inheritance for you.  And if by purchase, behold you are blessed;
    and if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are
    upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue
    to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance."
    [D & C 43]

Moreover, in the very discourse, most frequently quoted by anti-"Mormon" writers
against the church on this point--ante this chapter--Brigham Young very clearly
indicates that neither the church nor individual members of it had any right
to execute the law of retribution he had been discussing....If there has been
departure in any degree from that policy, and the positive, divine injunction
to the church and its individual members--"Thou shalt not kill"--if this
injunction has been violated, the responsibility for such departure rests
wholly upon the guilty individuals and not upon the church. (pp. 126-133)