The Blood Atonement Doctrine
From "Mormonism and Capital Punishment:
A Doctrinal Perspective, Past and Present"
By Martin R. Gardner
Published in Dialogue, Vol. 12, No. 1
Mormon doctrine teaches that Christ's atonement unconditionally saves the entire human family from physical death, the separation of the body and spirit which results from Adam's transgression. Christ's atonement also saves man from spiritual death, alienation from God resulting from one's actual sins, on the condition that the individual repent of his sins and obey God's commandments.
However, the doctrine of blood atonement posits that man can commit some sins so heinous that Christ's sacrifice is unavailing, but the offender himself may partially atone for his sin by sacrificing his life in a way which literally sheds his blood.
The spilling of blood is required because blood is viewed as possessing symbolic religious significance. "The man who commits murder, who imbues his hands in the blood of innocence, cannot receive eternal life because he cannot get forgiveness of that sin. What can he do? The only way to atone is to shed his
blood."
What is the reason for that? Why, we are told in the book of Leviticus, 17th chapter and 11th verse: 'For the life of the flesh 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.' . . . If Christ's blood had not been shed, each individual would have had to have his blood shed, according to Bible
doctrine.
The first seeds of blood atonement teachings were planted in Mormon thought before the Saints settled in Utah.
In 1843, Joseph Smith said:
In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging.
I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kills another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it
so.
On another occasion Joseph stated, "Hanging is the popular method of execution among the Gentiles in all countries professing Christianity, instead of blood for blood according to the law of
heaven."
Although the doctrine was taught, or at least suggested before the Saints went to Utah, blood atonement was fully developed by Brigham Young:
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 spilled upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins whereas, if such were not the case, they would stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world....
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 can never remit . . . There are sins that can be atoned for . . . [only] by the blood of the
man.
Other early Mormon leaders, including Jedediah M. Grant and Heber C. Kimball, both counselors in the First Presidency of the Church, taught the doctrine of blood
atonement and all played major roles in implementing the first capital punishment law in Utah.
While the most fervent sermons on blood atonement were preached during the reformation movement in the 1850s, a period of intense Mormon revivalism bordering on
fanaticism, the doctrine also seems to have been defended by nineteenth century church leaders after the excessive rhetoric of the reformation had subsided. Responding to anti-Mormon critics in 1884, George Q. Cannon said, "We do not believe in hanging. We think that if a man sheds blood, his blood should be shed by execution . . . [But] it is a process of law [not a Church function] and has no reference to any Church
ordinance.” In 1889, the First Presidency and Council of Twelve issued an official proclamation answering claims that the Mormon Church had practiced blood atonement extralegally. "We regard the killing of a human being, except in conformity with the civil law, as a capital crime, which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the
land.”
In 1891, President Wilford Woodruff answered scurrilous charges against the Mormons:
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.... It is part of our faith that the only atonement a murdered [sic] can make for his 'sin unto death' is the shedding of his own blood [through capital punishment as practiced by the State and not the Church] 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 can only pay the penalty. There is no other blood atonement taught, practiced or made part of the creed of the Latter-day
Saints.
Scriptural support for the doctrine of blood atonement, for the sin of murder at least, was derived primarily from Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." This verse, coupled with I John 3:15 ("No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him"), Hebrews 9:22 ("And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission"), and Leviticus 17:11 ("For the life of the flesh 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") provided the foundation from which Mormon leaders developed their
doctrine.
It is not entirely clear under what circumstances and for which sins blood atonement would avail the offender. As noted, some sins, particularly murder committed by baptized Mormons who have been "specially enlightened" by the power of the Holy Spirit, apparently can never be forgiven even if the offender willingly atones for this offense with his own
blood. For such offenders, however repentant, there seems to be no hope of overcoming spiritual death. Apparently, there are very few possible candidates for this class of "specially enlightened" murderers. The vast majority of murderers, therefore, would be capable of a modicum of salvation from their sins if they have atoned by shedding their own
blood.
Apart from murder, Mormon leaders also taught that sexual misconduct by Church members in certain circumstances, as well as the violation of certain sacred covenants, would be dealt with through blood atonement if the complete law of blood atonement were being
lived. Such opinions on blood atonement for sins other than murder did not, however, express a doctrine viable in this dispensation. They were discussions of a doctrine that operated in the past when church and state were not separated and which would apply in the future when the power to take life would be vested in a ruling
theocracy. Blood atonement for murder, while a possibility in this dispensation, was never viewed as an ecclesiastical
function but rather as a possible consequence of secular capital punishment law.
Because blood atonement involves an outward act of religious significance--shedding the sinner's blood as a means of salvation--it should not be seen merely as abstract
doctrine. That blood atonement was not viewed by the early Mormons as a purely hypothetical principle becomes clear when the relationship between the doctrine and the Utah capital punishment law is examined.