Recovery to Mormonism

Blood Atonement:

Do Mormons Kill Apostates?

Let’s get one thing out of the way first.  Mormons don’t kill apostates.  The Mormon Church does not and did not kill apostates. And this isn’t just a statement by the Church on the matter—no one has ever found any record of an apostate dying by any sort of order from General Authorities.

So that’s out of the way.  What is blood atonement? 

Here it is in brief.  Christ atoned for our sins, but two sins will not be atoned for, at least, not fully.  This is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and murder.  The New Testament supports this.  “No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him,” says 1 John 3:15.  Mark 3:29 tells us, “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.”  So Mormons are not unusual in this respect.  But blood atonement was this—for the unpardonable sins, the sinner must voluntarily submit themselves and their lives to have any hope of forgiveness in the next life. They would submit their blood to be shed, due to the gravity of their sins.

This is neither a comfortable doctrine nor an official one.  It was taught by early Church leaders in a theoretical sense.  As in, were the world a theocracy with God at the head, He could require such penalties as death for these grievous sins for the good of the sinner.  It would not be applicable save in a world where everyone had celestial knowledge of the truth and of God.

What is celestial knowledge?  Celestial knowledge is walking-with-God knowledge.  Celestial knowledge is the kind of knowledge you may well need to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.  And celestial knowledge in an entire community would not be possible unless it was an actual theocracy.  And a theocracy . . . like the books of Moses in the Old Testament represented a theocracy.

Brigham Young believed that most people sinned through some degree of ignorance.  Some anti- and ex-Mormons claim that blood atonement had something to do with running around, killing non-Mormons—this does not line up with blood atonement rhetoric at all.  Blood atonement was never about non-Mormons.  These were the ignorant who couldn’t sin against the greatest light, because they didn’t have it.  It was about those who had it and committed the unpardonable sin against it.  The shedding of innocent blood was seen as something even more heinous when performed by someone who had no excuse not to know better.

But the Mormon Church was not and is not in celestial times.  There is no theocracy, members of the Mormon religion are not as a body living with celestial knowledge.  And if to apostatize were a death sentence, then you would think Mormons would do a better job of killing the naysayers off.  Many apostates lived within snatching distance of Mormon settlements.  They did not die for it.  (And, by the way, “leaving the Church” would not equal “the unpardonable sin,” unless the person leaving had walking-with-God type knowledge and renounced it.)

And the principle of blood atonement, theoretical as it was, was voluntary.  The idea was that a murderer would give himself or herself up to the authorities of their own free will and that this would be a measure of atonement.  For blaspheming against the Holy Ghost—that only could be prosecuted in a theocracy. 

In short:

1. Blood Atonement is not a doctrine, but a theoretical idea preached in the early Church. 
2. It was not a policy of the Church.  It was never intended to be one. Even in theory, it could only work in a world unlike their world then, and ours now.
3. The Church did not and does not execute people—not for murder, not for blasphemy, not for anything.
4. Even as theory, the principle was meant to be voluntary.  You didn’t seek out the murderer—he or she came to the proper authority and gave themselves up.

(Source: Blood Atonement) (gathering proper sources)