Brigham Young and Blood Atonement

The Second Prophet

After Joseph Smith's death in 1844, Brigham Young emerged as the leader of the largest faction of Latter-day Saints. He led the epic migration to the Salt Lake Valley, governed the Territory of Utah with near-absolute authority for three decades, and shaped LDS doctrine and practice in ways that persist today. Understanding Young's teachings is essential to understanding Mormon history.

Among Young's most controversial teachings was the doctrine of blood atonement—the idea that certain sins are so grievous that Christ's blood cannot atone for them. For these sins, the sinner's own blood must be shed to have any hope of salvation. This doctrine, preached openly from the pulpit in nineteenth-century Utah, raises profound questions about prophetic authority and the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.

The Lion of the Lord

From Vermont to Zion

Brigham Young was born in 1801 in Vermont and converted to Mormonism in 1832 after reading the Book of Mormon. He rose quickly through church leadership, becoming one of the original Twelve Apostles in 1835. After Joseph Smith's death, Young's organizational abilities and forceful personality enabled him to outmaneuver rivals and claim leadership of the main body of Saints.

Young led the Mormon exodus to Utah in 1846-1847, establishing a theocratic kingdom in the Great Basin where the Saints could practice their religion without interference. He served as territorial governor, church president, and de facto supreme leader of the Mormon community until his death in 1877. Under his leadership, the church practiced polygamy openly, developed distinctive temple rituals, and established a prosperous, insular society.

A Different Kind of Prophet

Where Joseph Smith was charismatic and visionary, Brigham Young was practical and blunt. He was a gifted administrator and colonizer but also a harsh authoritarian. His sermons, preserved in the Journal of Discourses, reveal a leader who did not hesitate to threaten violence against apostates, sinners, and enemies of the church.

Young's rhetoric was particularly fierce during the Mormon Reformation of 1856-1857, a period of religious revival characterized by rebaptism, confession of sins, and inflammatory preaching. It was during this period that blood atonement doctrine was most explicitly and frequently taught.

The Doctrine of Blood Atonement

The Core Teaching

Blood atonement taught that certain sins place a person beyond the reach of Christ's atonement. For these sins—typically identified as murder, adultery, apostasy, and miscegenation (interracial marriage)—the only hope of salvation was to have one's own blood shed. The sinner's blood, spilled on the ground, could accomplish what Christ's blood could not.

Brigham Young stated this doctrine explicitly:

"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 spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins." (Journal of Discourses 4:53-54)

Young was not speaking metaphorically. He continued:

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them."

Specific Applications

Young and other leaders applied blood atonement to specific categories of sin:

Murder. This application had some biblical precedent (Genesis 9:6), though it was extended beyond judicial execution to religious obligation.

Adultery. Young taught that adulterers should be killed to save their souls: "Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins." (Journal of Discourses 3:247)

Apostasy. Those who left the faith after receiving temple ordinances were considered worthy of death. Young declared: "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die." (Journal of Discourses 1:83)

Interracial marriage. Young taught that race mixing was punishable by death: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses 10:110)

Rhetoric and Reality

Was Blood Atonement Practiced?

The extent to which blood atonement was actually carried out remains debated. The LDS church maintains that the doctrine was rhetorical— meant to emphasize the seriousness of sin—and was never officially implemented as church policy. Critics argue that the violent rhetoric created a climate in which murders did occur.

Several documented cases suggest the doctrine was more than rhetoric:

The Parrish-Potter murders (1857). William Parrish, his son, and a companion were killed while attempting to leave Utah. Evidence pointed to local church members acting under a sense of religious duty.

The Yates murder (1857). A man named Yates was killed in Payson, Utah, reportedly for apostasy. Contemporary accounts linked the killing to blood atonement preaching.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1857). The largest documented atrocity of the Utah period, discussed in our next lesson, occurred at the height of Reformation fervor.

The Climate of Fear

Whether or not blood atonement was officially practiced, the rhetoric created a climate of fear. Apostates who wished to leave Utah often did so secretly, fearing for their lives. Federal officials reported that dissenters were afraid to speak openly. The combination of theocratic government, geographic isolation, and violent preaching made Utah a place where religious dissent was dangerous.

Brigham Young himself acknowledged the atmosphere his preaching created: "I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them." (Journal of Discourses 4:219-220)

A Biblical Response

The Sufficiency of Christ's Atonement

The doctrine of blood atonement directly contradicts the biblical teaching about the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Scripture is clear that Jesus' blood alone is sufficient for all sin:

Not some sin—all sin. There is no category of transgression beyond the reach of Christ's atoning work. The author of Hebrews makes this explicit:

The sacrifice was offered "once for all"—completely, finally, sufficiently. No additional blood is needed. No human sacrifice can add to what Christ accomplished.

The Unpardonable Sin

Scripture does speak of an unpardonable sin—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32). But even here, the solution is not human blood sacrifice. The unpardonable sin is unpardonable precisely because the person who commits it has so hardened their heart against God that they will never seek forgiveness. It is a state of permanent, willful rejection of God's grace.

Blood atonement perverts this teaching by suggesting that human sacrifice can accomplish what Christ's sacrifice cannot—a direct assault on the gospel's central claim.

Vengeance Belongs to God

Even if certain sins deserved death, Scripture reserves vengeance to God and to properly constituted civil authority:

Blood atonement doctrine placed this divine prerogative in human hands— and specifically in the hands of church leaders who could identify sinners worthy of death. This is a dangerous usurpation of authority that belongs to God alone.

The Modern LDS Response

Distancing from the Doctrine

The modern LDS church has distanced itself from blood atonement. Official statements emphasize that it was never church policy, that the rhetoric was hyperbolic, and that the church has never sanctioned extrajudicial killing. Contemporary Latter-day Saints do not believe in or practice blood atonement.

A 2010 church statement declared: "So-called 'blood atonement,' by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

The Problem of Prophetic Authority

But this disavowal creates problems for LDS claims of prophetic authority. Brigham Young was the prophet, seer, and revelator for the church. His sermons were published as authoritative teaching. If he was wrong about something as significant as the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, how do members know when prophets are speaking truth and when they are speaking error?

The LDS church's answer—that prophets are human and can make mistakes— is reasonable in itself but undermines the very concept of prophetic authority. If Brigham Young could be catastrophically wrong about the atonement, what else might prophets be wrong about?

Implications for Gospel Witness

Using This Information Carefully

Blood atonement is a difficult topic that can easily derail conversations. Many Latter-day Saints are unaware of this history or have heard it dismissed as anti-Mormon propaganda. Introducing it requires care:

• Cite primary sources (the Journal of Discourses is available online) rather than secondary critics.
• Acknowledge that modern LDS members do not believe this doctrine.
• Focus on the theological issue (the sufficiency of Christ's atonement) rather than just the historical scandal.

Pointing to Christ's Sufficiency

The deeper issue is Christological. Blood atonement denies what the gospel proclaims: that Christ's sacrifice is complete, final, and sufficient for all sin. We can use this history to highlight the glory of what Christ has done:

"Brigham Young taught that some sins were beyond Christ's atonement. But the Bible teaches that Jesus' blood cleanses us from all sin. Isn't that good news? No sin is beyond his reach. No failure is too great for his grace."

This reframes the conversation from historical accusation to gospel invitation—which is where we want it to go.

A Sufficient Savior

Brigham Young's doctrine of blood atonement represents one of the darkest chapters in LDS history—not because of the violence it may have inspired, but because of the theology it expressed. To teach that Christ's blood is insufficient for certain sins is to diminish his sacrifice and leave sinners without hope.

The gospel offers something infinitely better. Jesus Christ died once for all. His blood cleanses completely. No sin is beyond his reach, no sinner beyond his love. We need not shed our own blood; he has shed his. We need not atone for ourselves; he has atoned for us.