blood atonement....

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

Blood atonement was nothing more, and nothing less than a tool for Brigham Young to keep his flock in fear (fear of god, and fear of Brigham himself).

Blood atonement, as taught by Brigham and his compatriots, was the driving force behind the numerous massacres that occurred during Utah's "bloody period".

The more one studies the early days of the church, the more one realizes that we do not belong to the same organization that Joseph, Brigham, and the rest of their lot founded. I would not have belonged to that church!

All-American,

There are documented cases of bishops and stake presidents taking mens' lives(and other things) in ritualized acts of blood atonement.

FWIW

I would not be shocked to learn that what you are saying is true, but having poked around this issue quite a bit a few years ago, my sense is that you have taken a very hotly contested topic and resolved all the abiguities and drawn all the inferences in the same direction. I don't think the opinion you are offering is quite as "factual" as it sounds upon presentation.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I would not be shocked to learn that what you are saying is true, but having poked around this issue quite a bit a few years ago, my sense is that you have taken a very hotly contested topic and resolved all the abiguities and drawn all the inferences in the same direction. I don't think the opinion you are offering is quite as "factual" as it sounds upon presentation.

Here are some interesting excerpts from D. Michael Quinn's book Mormon Heirarchy:

"During this period Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders also repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women. Blood-atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, 'covenant breaking,' counterfeiting, 'many men who left this Church,' murder, not being 'heartily on the Lord's side,' profaning 'the name of the Lord,' sexual intercourse between a 'white' person and an African-American, stealing, and telling lies…

"Some LDS historians have claimed that blood-atonement sermons were simply Brigham Young's use of 'rhetorical devices designed to frighten wayward individuals into conformity with Latter-day Saint principles' and to bluff anti-Mormons. Writers often describe these sermons as limited to the religious enthusiasm and frenzy of the Utah Reformation up to 1857. The first problem with such explanations is that official LDS sources show that as early as 1843 Joseph Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins.

"Moreover, a decade before Utah's reformation, Brigham Young's private instructions show that he fully expected his trusted associates to kill various persons for violating religious obligations. The LDS church's official history still quotes Young's words to 'the brethren' in February 1846: 'I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut.' The following December he instructed bishops, 'when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro' him in the River,' and Young did not instruct them to ask his permission. A week later the church president explained to a Winter Quarters meeting that cutting off the heads of repeated sinners 'is the law of God & it shall be executed...' A rephrase of Young's words later appeared in Hosea Stout's reference to a specific sinner, 'to cut him off-behind the ears-according to the law of God in such cases.'…

"When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed 'if they were far away from the Gentiles.'"(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 246-247)

"In September 1857 Apostle George A. Smith told a Salt Lake City congregation that Mormons at Parowan in southern Utah 'wish that their enemies might come and give them a chance to fight and take vengeance for the cruelties that had been inflicted upon us in the States.' Smith had just returned from southern Utah where he had encouraged such feelings by preaching fiery sermons about resisting the U.S. army and taking vengeance on anti-Mormons. Just days before his talk in Salt Lake City, members of Parowan's Mormon militia participated in killing 120 men, women, and children in the Mountain Meadows Massacre…

"Although most accounts claimed that the militia killed only the adult males and let their Indian allies kill the women and children, perpetrator Nephi Johnson later told an LDS apostle that 'white men did most of the killing.' Perpetrator George W. Adair also told another apostle that 'John Higbee gave the order to kill the women and children,' and Adair 'saw the women's and children's throats cut.'…

"As late as 1868 the Deseret News encouraged rank-and-file Mormons to kill anyone who engaged in sexual relations outside marriage…

"Under such circumstances the Mormon hierarchy bore full responsibility for the violent acts of zealous Mormon[s] who accepted their instructions literally and carried out various forms of blood atonement. 'Obviously there were those who could not easily make a distinction between rhetoric and reality,' a BYU religion professor has written…It is unrealistic to assume that faithful Mormons all declined to act on such repeated instructions in pioneer Utah…Neither is it reasonable to assume that the known cases of blood atonement even approximated the total number that occurred in the first twenty years after Mormon settlement in Utah…LDS leaders publicly and privately encouraged Mormons to consider it their religious right to kill antagonistic outsiders, common criminals, LDS apostates, and even faithful Mormons who committed sins 'worthy of death.'" (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 251-53, 56-57, 60)

[All-American]

That is interesting stuff. I admit I have not done as much looking into the matter as with other topics, so most of what I'm reading here I've not seen before. With that said, I have four questions. Regarding the idea and practice of Blood Atonement,

1.) How much of what is said regarding the practice, be it contextual reinterpretation or actual event, is actually the result of press unfavorable to Mormons? (I recognize that the citation given above was so done by a Mormon, but how accurate are his conclusions, his sources, the conclusion given by his sources, etc. all the way back to the event they describe?)

2.)To what extent are the practices of Blood Atonement consistant with the law of Moses, which also demanded execution in many situations no longer considered to be worthy of capital punishment? In considering this question, it is important to remember that for the early years, the church played an important role in government in the territory of Utah.

3.) How many of the teachings of the doctrine apply today, and

4.) what has been the method of removal for those that were disposed of?

These are honest inquiries. If the answers are "None, none, all, and none" then I'd like to hear them.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Here are some interesting excerpts from D. Michael Quinn's book Mormon Heirarchy:

"During this period Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders also repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women. Blood-atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, 'covenant breaking,' counterfeiting, 'many men who left this Church,' murder, not being 'heartily on the Lord's side,' profaning 'the name of the Lord,' sexual intercourse between a 'white' person and an African-American, stealing, and telling lies…

"Some LDS historians have claimed that blood-atonement sermons were simply Brigham Young's use of 'rhetorical devices designed to frighten wayward individuals into conformity with Latter-day Saint principles' and to bluff anti-Mormons. Writers often describe these sermons as limited to the religious enthusiasm and frenzy of the Utah Reformation up to 1857. The first problem with such explanations is that official LDS sources show that as early as 1843 Joseph Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins.

"Moreover, a decade before Utah's reformation, Brigham Young's private instructions show that he fully expected his trusted associates to kill various persons for violating religious obligations. The LDS church's official history still quotes Young's words to 'the brethren' in February 1846: 'I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut.' The following December he instructed bishops, 'when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro' him in the River,' and Young did not instruct them to ask his permission. A week later the church president explained to a Winter Quarters meeting that cutting off the heads of repeated sinners 'is the law of God & it shall be executed...' A rephrase of Young's words later appeared in Hosea Stout's reference to a specific sinner, 'to cut him off-behind the ears-according to the law of God in such cases.'…

"When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed 'if they were far away from the Gentiles.'"(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 246-247)

"In September 1857 Apostle George A. Smith told a Salt Lake City congregation that Mormons at Parowan in southern Utah 'wish that their enemies might come and give them a chance to fight and take vengeance for the cruelties that had been inflicted upon us in the States.' Smith had just returned from southern Utah where he had encouraged such feelings by preaching fiery sermons about resisting the U.S. army and taking vengeance on anti-Mormons. Just days before his talk in Salt Lake City, members of Parowan's Mormon militia participated in killing 120 men, women, and children in the Mountain Meadows Massacre…

"Although most accounts claimed that the militia killed only the adult males and let their Indian allies kill the women and children, perpetrator Nephi Johnson later told an LDS apostle that 'white men did most of the killing.' Perpetrator George W. Adair also told another apostle that 'John Higbee gave the order to kill the women and children,' and Adair 'saw the women's and children's throats cut.'…

"As late as 1868 the Deseret News encouraged rank-and-file Mormons to kill anyone who engaged in sexual relations outside marriage…

"Under such circumstances the Mormon hierarchy bore full responsibility for the violent acts of zealous Mormon[s] who accepted their instructions literally and carried out various forms of blood atonement. 'Obviously there were those who could not easily make a distinction between rhetoric and reality,' a BYU religion professor has written…It is unrealistic to assume that faithful Mormons all declined to act on such repeated instructions in pioneer Utah…Neither is it reasonable to assume that the known cases of blood atonement even approximated the total number that occurred in the first twenty years after Mormon settlement in Utah…LDS leaders publicly and privately encouraged Mormons to consider it their religious right to kill antagonistic outsiders, common criminals, LDS apostates, and even faithful Mormons who committed sins 'worthy of death.'" (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 251-53, 56-57, 60)

I own the book and am aware of Quinn's research on the matter. I just think it is one of those things where there is no (or little) objective source data. Most of what is available is either calculated to smear the church or to paint the chruch in the whitest light possible. Funny how little that has changed.

My point was not that I find it incredible, but just that I don't think you can swallow all of that whole or without a few grains of salt. The reality of things at this remote junction may well be unknowable. I don't really resolve those ambiguities one way or the other because I don't think I can.