Atonement and Blood Atonement

ME: I’d like to ask some questions now about the Atonement of Jesus Christ, if I may. I’d really being interested to hear from the more recent authorities about your thoughts on the scope, or reach, of the atonement. Just how far does it go?  

JEF: Our Redeemer took upon Himself all the sins, pains, infirmities, and sicknesses of all who have ever lived and will ever live… Since the Savior has suffered anything and everything that we could ever feel or experience, He can help the weak to become stronger. He understands our pain and will walk with us even in our darkest hours.^[42]  

NAM: Jesus not only took upon Him our sins to atone for them, but also our sicknesses and aching griefs… Hence, He knows personally all that we pass through and how to extend His perfect mercy…^[43]

DHO: His Atonement reaches and is powerful enough not only to pay the price for sin but also to heal every mortal affliction.^[44] 

ME: Elder Packer, are there limits to the mercy extended through the Atonement? 

BKP: Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness [sic], there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness.^[45]   

ME: President Young, do you agree with what these brethren have just said? 

BY: It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it (the blood of Christ) can never remit^[46]… Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved... and suppose that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin and may be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, ‘shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?’^[47]  

ME: Wait… I want to make sure I understand you… are you saying that some sins are so severe that the person committing these sins must have his own blood spilt, or in other words, be put to death? President Smith, are you familiar with this doctrine? If so, would you explain it to us? 

JFS: Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ.  If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent.  Therefore their only hope is to have their blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf.  This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church.^[48] 

ME: I see. Well, it would appear that this differs from what we’ve heard from Elder’s Packer, Faust, Maxwell, and Oaks. President Young, would you help us understand how this idea of blood atonement squares with the principles of mercy, love, and forgiveness? 

BY: This is loving your neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.^[49]  

ME: So if I find someone that, in my estimation, has sinned beyond the reach of the Atonement, I would be serving him if I killed him? What would you say to me if I found such a person? 

BY: Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood?  Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?  That is what Jesus Christ meant.^[50] 

ME: But how will I know when it is or is not appropriate to carry this out? Can you give me an example? 

BY: Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.^[51] 

ME: So anyone would be justified in doing this? 

BY: Every man and women has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone.^[52] 

ME: So if I feel clean, or worthy, I am authorized to carry out this act of mercy. Is that what you’re saying? I have to say… and I think I speak for almost everyone in the church… this would be quite difficult to do. We’re clearly taught that murder is against the teachings of Christ and the 10 Commandments. 

JMG: We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him...^[53]

ME: I see. Still, how do I really know when I should do this? What sins, specifically, should I look for? President Young mentioned adultery… 

OP: The people of Utah are the only ones in this nation who have taken effectual measures... to prevent adulteries and criminal connections between the sexes.  The punishment, for these crimes is death to both male and female.  And this law is written on the hearths and printed in the thoughts of the whole people.^[54]  

GAS: The principle, the only one that beats and throbs through the heart of the entire inhabitants of this Territory, is simply this: The man who seduces his neighbors wife must die, and her nearest relative must kill him!^[55] 

ME: Well, as difficult as this is to fathom, your explanations have been painfully clear. The price for adultery is quite simply death. Are there any other sins that might qualify for such a punishment? What should be done with a thief caught stealing, for instance? 

BY: I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity.  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.^[56] 

ME: Elder Grant, are there church members in Utah that qualify for this kind of punishment? 

JMG: I say, there are men and women that I would advise to go to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their care; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood.  We have amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye... I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood...^[57]

ME: If you found such men and women, how would you approach them? What would you say to them? 

JMG: Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. 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.^[58]  

ME: Elder Ballard, Elder Grant said that some sins are “too deep a dye” for the waters of baptism to erase. Is this true? 

MRB: It is a lie propounded by the adversary that our sins can run too deep, that any one of us has sunk below the reach of the Savior and his atonement.^[59] 

ME: It that’s so, then Elder Grant, President Young, and others were just flat wrong about this. I don’t know how to say it any other way. Elder McConkie, are you familiar with this doctrine? Is it legitimate? We have already heard from President Smith that it is. What do you have to say about it? 

BRM: …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.^[60] 

ME: If it’s a true principle, it would follow, then, that it has been and should be practiced. Would you agree? 

BRM: From the days of Joseph Smith to the present, wicked and evilly-disposed persons have fabricated false and slanderous stories to the effect that the Church, in the early days of this dispensation, engaged in a practice of blood atonement where under the blood of apostates and others was shed by the Church as an atonement for their sins... there is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught....^[61] 

ME: But you just acknowledged that it was taught, and now you appear to be saying that it was not… or at least if it was, that it was not practiced. You’ve heard President Young, Elder Pratt, Elder Smith, and Elder Grant declare that they’ve preached this doctrine. Why would they so adamantly teach a doctrine that was not to be practiced? President Young, was the blood-atonement doctrine ever put into practice or not? 

BY: I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins...^[62]  

ME: Well, that would only make sense, considering everything you’ve said about it.  

Next