I was wondering a few things. How can we explain the blood atonement taught by Brigham Young? What about Polyandry (Joseph married woman who were married to other men in the church)? When you ask about this no one wants to discuss or explain.
2 Responses to “I was wondering a few things.How can we explain the…”
Felipe Santana
2013-06-02 19:37:39
Hi friend. I'm happy you published your questions here. You have encountered a form of anti-Mormonism that's a bit more sophisticated than most. Most anti-Mormons simply lie about our beliefs. Those who are more sophisticated, however, distort our history instead of openly lying. That way, they can even "cite their sources." However, their assertions still constitute significant distortions of true history.
Blood Atonement
In the 1850s, leaders of the church were very concerned about the waning faithfulness of the Mormon people. After the great exodus to Utah, an act of faith that required tremendous dedication, a certain spiritual lethargy began to grow in some of our communities. Church leaders began a spiritual reformation that gave new emphasis to covenants and commitment.
For members of the church, Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, our Savior and Redeemer through whom salvation is made possible. (Reflections of Christ)
To accomplish this reformation, excessive rhetoric was sometimes used. One idea presented was the idea of "blood atonement." It's obvious that Mormons (together with other Christians) still believe in this doctrine in a certain sense, given that the atonement of Christ was effectuated through the shedding of blood. As the apostle Paul taught: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!" (Romans 5:8-9).
However, in an effort to encourage greater faithfulness, Brigham Young presented the theory that some sins are so great that they cannot be forgiven through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. According to this theory, if there were such a thing as a perfect society where religious and secular laws were righteously united, a murderer, for example, would voluntarily submit himself to any penalty that the Lord should demand in order to pay for his own sin, even death if it was God's will. As you can imagine, this theory did, in fact, encourage greater faithfulness, as intended! :-) However, it's obviously an idea that is totally rejected in the church today.
It's important to emphasize a few important aspects of this teaching. When Brigham Young talked about blood atonement, he was presenting a hypothetical situation. Given that the "perfect society" has never existed, the only practical application of "blood atonement" was its use as a rhetorical device. It's also important to point out that, even in his day, some in the church did not agree with Brigham's theory.
Furthermore, even in the hypothetical situation described, blood-atonement punishment would be accepted voluntarily. We can see, then, that in some ways this principle was more liberal than the secular laws of many countries, where even today murderers are condemned to death forcefully rather than voluntarily.
As early as the 19th century, anti-Mormons started claiming that the church actually practiced "blood atonement" by encouraging violence against dissidents, enemies, and foreigners. Instead of describing a hypothetical situation based on a criminal's voluntary submission, anti-Mormons claimed that blood atonement was being used to justify involuntary punishment.
As you can imagine, in the 19th century there were isolated acts of violence in areas where latter-day saints lived. These acts were typical of this historical period in the American West. (One need only watch wild-west films to get a feel for more or less what it was like. :)) In the eyes of anti-Mormons, every act of violence was evidence of an application of "blood atonement." A careful examination of the records of that era, however, does not provide any evidence that this "doctrine" was ever actually practiced in the church. Violent acts, typical of that era, were not sanctioned by the church.
Modern anti-Mormons continue to use the same techniques. They systematically analyze church records--in particular the Journal of discourses with its 26 volumes (!)--Looking for any phrase, however trivial, that might support their point of view. They conveniently ignore many passages that demonstrate their distortion. As the Journal of discourses is very lengthy, most people do not have the time to read it in order to verify citations in their proper context. Regardless, the modern church rejects this theory; only Christ can atone for our sins through the shedding of His blood.
Polyandry
The question of Joseph Smith's polyandry is another example of anti-Mormon distortion. In modern Mormonism, marriage for time and marriage for eternity (sealing) go hand-in-hand. When two modern Mormons are sealed in the temple, they are married in the eyes of the law (for time) as well. The idea that someone could be sealed to a woman and married to another is foreign to our modern experience. Surprisingly, this cultural practice was not well established in the Mormonism of the 19th century. For example, for many years after his death, various married women chose to be sealed vicariously to Joseph Smith as his "spiritual wives," even though they were never married to him in life.
It's important to understand that sealing and marriage for time were not always coupled in the 19th century. It's true that Joseph Smith was sealed to various women who were already married for time, principally to other faithful Mormon men. There is no evidence, however, that Joseph Smith was married (for time) to any of these women, and there is no credible evidence that he engaged in sexual intimacy with any of them. In fact, many (all?) of the husbands of these women authorized their sealing to Joseph, and the wives continued to live with their "original" husbands after the sealing ceremony.
In fact, there is little evidence that the plural marriages of Joseph Smith involved much sexual intimacy at all. Most of his "marriages" (in reality, sealings) most likely had nothing to do with sex. For example, there is no convincing evidence that any of his "plural marriages" produced a child. Genetic tests have revealed that various individuals who claimed to be descendants of Joseph Smith through his plural wives are in fact not related to the prophet. I don't mean to deny that early Mormons were polygamists. It's obvious that they were. However, history seems to support Joseph's claim that sexual intimacy was not the motivating factor behind these sealings.
When the concept of plural marriage was received as revelation from the Lord and then taught to the Saints, many of them did not understand what it meant. Some of them thought that in order for the human race to be united as one big family, women had to be spiritually married to a prophet so that their own husbands and children could be part of one big family. Some of them believed that if you were an unmarried woman, the only way you could be part of an eternal family was to be sealed to a prophet. This is why we find married women being sealed to Joseph Smith, and women being sealed to him after he was already dead. In both cases, there was no sexual contact. As understanding of the principle of plural marriage and the nature of eternal families grew, both of these practices stopped.
Blood Atonement
In the 1850s, leaders of the church were very concerned about the waning faithfulness of the Mormon people. After the great exodus to Utah, an act of faith that required tremendous dedication, a certain spiritual lethargy began to grow in some of our communities. Church leaders began a spiritual reformation that gave new emphasis to covenants and commitment.
However, in an effort to encourage greater faithfulness, Brigham Young presented the theory that some sins are so great that they cannot be forgiven through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. According to this theory, if there were such a thing as a perfect society where religious and secular laws were righteously united, a murderer, for example, would voluntarily submit himself to any penalty that the Lord should demand in order to pay for his own sin, even death if it was God's will. As you can imagine, this theory did, in fact, encourage greater faithfulness, as intended! :-) However, it's obviously an idea that is totally rejected in the church today.
It's important to emphasize a few important aspects of this teaching. When Brigham Young talked about blood atonement, he was presenting a hypothetical situation. Given that the "perfect society" has never existed, the only practical application of "blood atonement" was its use as a rhetorical device. It's also important to point out that, even in his day, some in the church did not agree with Brigham's theory.
Furthermore, even in the hypothetical situation described, blood-atonement punishment would be accepted voluntarily. We can see, then, that in some ways this principle was more liberal than the secular laws of many countries, where even today murderers are condemned to death forcefully rather than voluntarily.
As early as the 19th century, anti-Mormons started claiming that the church actually practiced "blood atonement" by encouraging violence against dissidents, enemies, and foreigners. Instead of describing a hypothetical situation based on a criminal's voluntary submission, anti-Mormons claimed that blood atonement was being used to justify involuntary punishment.
As you can imagine, in the 19th century there were isolated acts of violence in areas where latter-day saints lived. These acts were typical of this historical period in the American West. (One need only watch wild-west films to get a feel for more or less what it was like. :)) In the eyes of anti-Mormons, every act of violence was evidence of an application of "blood atonement." A careful examination of the records of that era, however, does not provide any evidence that this "doctrine" was ever actually practiced in the church. Violent acts, typical of that era, were not sanctioned by the church.
Modern anti-Mormons continue to use the same techniques. They systematically analyze church records--in particular the Journal of discourses with its 26 volumes (!)--Looking for any phrase, however trivial, that might support their point of view. They conveniently ignore many passages that demonstrate their distortion. As the Journal of discourses is very lengthy, most people do not have the time to read it in order to verify citations in their proper context. Regardless, the modern church rejects this theory; only Christ can atone for our sins through the shedding of His blood.
Polyandry
The question of Joseph Smith's polyandry is another example of anti-Mormon distortion. In modern Mormonism, marriage for time and marriage for eternity (sealing) go hand-in-hand. When two modern Mormons are sealed in the temple, they are married in the eyes of the law (for time) as well. The idea that someone could be sealed to a woman and married to another is foreign to our modern experience. Surprisingly, this cultural practice was not well established in the Mormonism of the 19th century. For example, for many years after his death, various married women chose to be sealed vicariously to Joseph Smith as his "spiritual wives," even though they were never married to him in life.
It's important to understand that sealing and marriage for time were not always coupled in the 19th century. It's true that Joseph Smith was sealed to various women who were already married for time, principally to other faithful Mormon men. There is no evidence, however, that Joseph Smith was married (for time) to any of these women, and there is no credible evidence that he engaged in sexual intimacy with any of them. In fact, many (all?) of the husbands of these women authorized their sealing to Joseph, and the wives continued to live with their "original" husbands after the sealing ceremony.
In fact, there is little evidence that the plural marriages of Joseph Smith involved much sexual intimacy at all. Most of his "marriages" (in reality, sealings) most likely had nothing to do with sex. For example, there is no convincing evidence that any of his "plural marriages" produced a child. Genetic tests have revealed that various individuals who claimed to be descendants of Joseph Smith through his plural wives are in fact not related to the prophet. I don't mean to deny that early Mormons were polygamists. It's obvious that they were. However, history seems to support Joseph's claim that sexual intimacy was not the motivating factor behind these sealings.
I hope these answers help! Let me know if you have any additional questions.