Mormons, was the Blood Atonement just a convenient way for Brigham Young to eliminate his enemies?

Question

I can't believe you have never heard of the blood atonement. It was one of Mormonisms big things with BY was around. google it. Ask your Bishop. He won't want to talk about it, but he knows what it is.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/jofdvol3p243_249brighambloodatonement.htm

Brigham Young discussed this in his Journal of Discourses, which is still referenced today in many lesson manuals.

Answer 1

This was the original form of 'excommunication' used in Utah. A form of it today exists as the extraordinarily lengthy process it take to get one's name off the rolls. The original method was far more efficient and quicker.

Answer 2

He is expressing common frontier logic and sentiment where a thief "paid with his life" for stealing a man's horse. His quotes have been so contorted by time and our changing mores, that these sentiments, expressed not only by Young, but the law, as well, should be considered in their context and not as binding doctrine of the LDS faith. LDS firmly believe that a person should be held accountable for their own sins _and_ also fully know that there are instances where the sinner cannot repay the sin and that only the blood of Jesus (the only form of blood atonement) can pay for our sins. To put this in better perspective - if a person steals something from you and then repents and returns it to you, has he not at least partially paid for his sin? If you do not believe that, then I'd like to know where you live. You've just given the world justification for robbing you and never feeling guilty about having to pay you for their sins. The answer to your question is, "NO!" We at least recognize the context of the statement. It is obvious that critics of the church are unwilling to recognize the part history has played in statement made by 19th Century historical figures. Edit: I should note that I'm not saying you are guilty of misconstruing what has happened or setting it up as being something other than what it appears. All I am saying is that we need to consider what we are saying and consider all the implications. By suggesting that only the blood atonement of Jesus (in which we, as LDS, believe), you are opening yourself up to not asking for justice from anyone convicted of committing a crime. Somehow, I don't think that is your intent. Furthermore, by ignoring the conditions in the middle of the 19th Century in favor of our outlook today, _people_ ignore what was certainly nothing more or less "frontier justice" and something that was believed by people of all faiths at the time. The demand for payment of crime ran much stronger then than it does today and was a sentiment shared by almost all people of the time, even to the point of having a man shed his own blood (by hanging or firing squad) in payment for his crime.

Answer 3

I don't mind answering your questions as long as you are trying not to be decived, and looking for honest answers. However, if you have other motives it's better that you leave it alone. Acts 5: 34-39

I did some research and came up with some sources for you.

"While Brigham's example seems to us extreme, we need to keep in mind the spirit of his time. He was speaking forcefully to a group of spiritually apathetic Saints to remind them of the seriousness of the covenants they had made. He took an Old Testament scenario--one in which an Israelite had killed another sexually immoral Israelite--and applied it to his own time and people.

Before our critics go after Brigham Young for his views on blood atonement, they need to deal with comparable passages in their own Bible."

Answer 4

He was a greedy sod wasn't he? Raiding wagon trains to steal the goods and the children! He preached blood atonement all of the time telling Mormons to slit nonbelievers' throats from ear to ear.

Answer 5

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term "Blood Atonement". The only Atonement we refer to is the great sacrifice through with Jesus Christ paid the penalty for all our sins.

Answer 6

Joseph Smith was called a prophet, dum dum dum dum dum.... Mormons cannot be taken seriously. It's more a cult than a religion!

Answer 7

There are not enough proofs to show that it was Brigham who started that. He was a prophet so he would not have started that.

Answer 8

Geez you know a lot about Mormon's ... why do you care so much?