A doctrine believed to be taught by Brigham Young in connection with theocratic laws and repentance. The doctrine as understood by modern historians is based mainly on two separate statements made by Young and is not usually associated with the church’s temple rites, although early critics of the church attempted to draw a connection between the two. Most modern historians do not associate the two based on additional information about both.

Table of contents
1 Background
2 Doctrine and Practice
3 Historical perspective
4 Springville Homicides

Background

According to Mormon theology, when one repents of sins, it is necessary not only to confess and forsake the sin, but to restore what was lost -- or provide restitution for the sin that was committed. For example, if something is stolen, restitution would require that the item be returned to show true repentance and contrition. This is similar to the Unification Church concept of indemnity.

Doctrine and Practice

According to Young’s statements, there are certain sins that people cannot restore that which was taken -- especially with sins such as fornication (loss of chastity) and murder (loss of life). In the latter of these examples, murder, according to Young, it would be better for the sinner to spill his own blood (as required by the Law of Moses) to show that he was willing to give restitution for the life taken. He taught that in a theocratic system of government, such as the Law of Moses, the Lord could require capital punishment as part of repentance for shedding innocent blood. Young most likely used this as a way to highlight the seriousness of murder to the church members in the western frontier, where vigilante justice was often carried out.

Modern Mormon apologetics compare Young’s statement to similar ones made by Jesus Christ. Christ mentioned in the New Testament that it would be better for those who offend children (many Christians believe this refers to various types of child abuse -- sexual, physical and emotional) to have a millstone hung around their neck and thrown into the depths of the sea than to be born.

Critics of the doctrine say that Young was encouraging members of the church to murder apostates and give various examples including the Springville murders (see below) as evidence.

Purely speaking, the doctrine as taught by Young and others teaches that no man can be saved from their sins except by blood -- and in particular -- the blood of Jesus Christ. The doctrines of the Church confirm that the Atonement took place by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and all those who believe, repent, are baptized and receive the Holy Ghost have full access to the Atonement. The doctrine is expanded to that if afterward receiving these saving ordinances, a person commits a ‘grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood,’ the act must be restored by a voluntarily submission to a penalty as directed by God to His servants, which may include death or suicide.

The church has taught that this doctrine can only be practiced when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are "administered in the same hands," such as in the days of Moses or King David.

Church historian Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. taught the following about Blood atonement:

"What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General -- that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ -- and, Individual -- that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. But man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone -- so far as in his power lies -- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail." -- Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.134

Some critics (including R.C. Evans, a second counselor in the RLDS, now Community of Christ church in an attempt to discredit Brigham Young as Joseph Smith’s successor) of the LDS church during the late 1800s and early 1900s drew a comparison to these teachings and certain penalties that members of the church would make in temples. These members would describe in detail various ways they would rather die, including slitting their necks, than break their covenants with God to obey Him and build up His church. This was done by the covenant-maker to show their understanding of the gravity of making covenants with God. Most modern historians, however, do not tie the two teachings together and credit Joseph Smith with the doctrine’s origin.

Historical perspective

The LDS Church has repeatedly stated that it has never practiced Blood Atonement. At least twice Church presidents have affirmed that the church has never attempted to pass judgment on, or execute an apostate. According to most historians, such accusations of murder or blood atonement is unfounded.

There were early rumors of a few deaths by the above mentioned methods for apostates or known ‘ruffians’ by members of the church. Those familiar with the credibility of most of these victims are not surprised with their murders. The rumors of LDS church connection have not be substantiated or tied to the church by recent historians, although critics of the church show convincing parallels with the type of death and church teachings. These deaths may well have been done by members of the church, who may or may not have believed they were acting appropriately, or by others whom these people may have wronged that were familiar with church teachings, which would include nearly everyone who was in the U.S. Territory during the time period. Most historians both within and without the church are awaiting new documentation or primary sources to determine who was responsible for these deaths and have largely left the issue open-ended.

Springville Homicides

One of the examples used by critics of the church is a set of murders in Springville, Utah of individuals who, according to historical documents and court records, were "very questionable characters." Judge Elias Smith stated in regard to the case: "We have carefully examined all the evidence furnished by a remarkably accurate stenographic reporter, and can only conclude that evidence before the court goes to show' that Durfee, Potter and two of the Parrishes got into a row about matters best, if not only, known to themselves, and for that Potter and two Parrishes were killed." -- Records published in the Deseret News, April 6th, 1859.

{Having studied this issue in depth, I have tried to keep this as NPOV as possible, showing arguments from both critics and Latter-day Saints, but have taken a more moderate approach from a historian’s point of view and the most recent research on the subject. Additions are welcome. Due to the controversial nature of this page, I would prefer deletions to be discussed on the talk page prior to deletion, in order to keep NPOV and consistency.}