Brigham Young and blood atonement; What's the deal? Ep. 85

Brigham Young apparently believed that some sins were so bad that the atonement of Christ would not cover them, and that the only way to atone for those sins would be for the sinner to willingly have their blood shed. But despite Brigham’s harsh language, there is no irrefutable evidence that anyone was ever actually ‘blood atoned’ by order of Brigham or the Church.

CORRECTION: In the video I mention that I was able to find 5 references to blood atonement in the Journal of Discourses. Actually, one of those references is from some remarks Brigham gave during a Utah legislative session, and is not found in the Journal of Discourses (inter-racial marriage reference).

Notes:

-In the words of apostle Neil L. Anderson, “...doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk [or in this case, relatively few talks]. True principles are taught frequently and by many.”

-The following quote is just one piece of a larger essay (Quora response) on this subject by non-Latter-day Saint anthropologist Manu Padro. It’s rather blunt, but offers some interesting perspective:

-From B. H. Roberts: “I am not so blind in my admiration of the Mormon people, or so bigoted in my devotion to the Mormon faith as to think that there are no individuals in that Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly, intemperate speech and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that some in their over-zeal have lacked judgment; and that in times of excitement, under stress of special provocation, even Mormon leaders have given utterance to ideas that are indefensible.” Source: “Defense of the Faith and the Saints,” p. 76.

-Deseret News, 1882-5-10 (Charles Penrose, Editor): “It has been represented that our leaders claim and are accorded infallibility; that everything they say is taken for God’s word; that their orders are sufficient to condemn a person to death; and other such absurd powers are imputed to them as Church authorities. Those ideas are altogether foreign to the very genius of our faith, and never entered into the framework of our creed or constitution of our system. They are purely the manufacture of our enemies who demonstrate the weakness of their cause by never contenting themselves with the truth in any of their assaults.”

-More notes on website!

SUBSCRIBE:

Follow Us:

Follow the Host:

[greymurdock]

Your videos come off as very humble and honest… I appreciate your work. You give a a great responsive voice on these controversial subjects… I myself am not a member but find myself wanting to defend Mormon beliefs because
I do believe the church and it’s members are an overall cause of good in this world despite what many others may think…

[anthonyrippa]

IF you're prepared to say that (1) some statements by "past" prophets are indefensible, a product of their time, and fallible, are you likewise prepared to say that (1) some statements by President Nelson are indefensible, a product of his time, and fallible? How, where and when do you draw the line?

[SimonDaumMusic]

This may sound strange, but not only God is the judge, but God clearly stated that we will be judged by him with mercy, excactly how much mercy we show towards others, and that God will judge as, just as we judge others, and yes, obviously to judge rightously, is good in that case, but to judge mercyfully is even better, for others and for ourselves... and I think this is what the atonement prepared the way for.

By the way, I really love your videos and how you stick to the facts and bring it all across within a few minutes, that really is a great and vital work you do

[stevenschmidt]

We talk about how all sins can be repented of (if done sincerely) except for the "unpardonable sin". But often it is somewhat unclear what an unpardonable sin actually is. In my view, (and this is my own opinion), the unpardonable sin is the sin of utterly, to the very end, refusing to repent. In other words, the only sin one cannot repent of is the sin of refusing to repent. It's kind of a cyclic definition, but to me that makes a lot of sense.

[dappermuis]

As someone who likes history in general, a big issue I've seen with so many people, is that they view it through modern eyes. Not understanding you need to view things with an understanding of how people lived and thought back then. Once you understand that, it makes a huge difference in understanding what was going on.

Including how language was used. How many words we use today in a certain way, meant something slightly or completely different to what we use today or has an additional meaning, then or now? Also how many times has something been misunderstood just because two people were from different cultures? What attitudes or events were happening at the time too, that affected what they did.

The more I read or watch things about additional things around a happening of an even in history the better I understand why decisions were made. Whether they be good or bad.

[Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

"I say shocking satanic things to get people's attention. That's all. Otherwise, they'd be sleepin'."

[Cyber_Cowboy]

1:46 dude I would like to think you don't know about Mountain Meadows Massacre and that's why you didn't include it as evidence for blood atonement.
But we both know you are aware of the massacre. So why did you omit it? Were you told you can't include it or did you just want to lie to people watching this video. Either way it doesn't look good for your integrity.

[benjaminkoerper]

Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil."

(Jer. xvii:5) "Thus saith the Lord: cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm; and whose heart departeth from the Lord."

[ernm]

Oh man, this is my favorite video thus far. Not for the actual teachings- which were in and of themselves thought provoking and well presented- but that editing😂😂😂. So so good. *chef’s kiss 👌

[scottvance]

1:17 - "If you have the expectation that everything ever spoken by a general authority is the will of God - you're going to be sorely disappointed." And where would we get such a crazy idea as this. Oh wait, here we go: "The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. " Brigham Young. From Howard w. Hunter we have: "Our modern-day prophets have encouraged us to make the reading of the conference editions of our Church magazines an important and regular part of our personal study. Thus, general conference becomes, in a sense, a supplement to or an extension of the Doctrine and Covenants." Things spoken in general conference were widely considered to be doctrine until about 2007 when doctrine was redefined by mormon newsroom.

[BrendonKing]

I would hate to belong to a church where I have to actively defend the shortcomings of men.

[AMDG]

If I ever do go back to the LDS Church it will be on my terms. I will NEVER regard Brigham Young as a true Christian, let alone a true Prophet, and I will have no regard for anything he has ever said. Same goes for Lorenzo Snow who claimed (in complete contradiction of the Bible), "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be". It seems a few leaders and members of the Church in it's beginnings did not believe in Christ's atonement for ALL sin for ALL people for ALL time. Also, the quote from 2 Nephi 25:23, "For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do", unless it means something other than it 'appears' to mean, it is adding works as a requirement for being saved and denying the Complete Atonement of Christ as the ONLY means of salvation. And finally, the statement by Joseph Smith himself: "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. Neither Paul, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church 6:408-409). There is much to love about the LDS Church and its people, but these things are the major stumbling blocks to my returning to the LDS Church.

[jacobreeves]

Wouldn't God just tell Brigham that slavery is wrong? Or that God the Father isn't Adam. If he speaks with God, how could he be so wrong?

[chubbuck]

My struggle is that I was raised in the church in the 80's & 90's learning that the prophet will never lead me astray. We even sang a primary song saying those exact words. That concept was drilled into my head. Why is it that only now that the internet gives us ample access to this information, and the general membership is seeing these problems that the church is changing it's tune and now saying that the prophets are just men and don't always speak for God? It seems convenient that only the things that we now have disavowed are the times he was speaking as a man, but the things we haven't yet disavowed he was still speaking as a prophet. But then 10 years from now if we disavow a current church position then at that time we'll say he was speaking as a man, even though 10 years prior we were saying he was speaking as a prophet. Do you see the problem here? You are creating a narrative that forces us to not be able to trust anything the prophet says is from God. So at this point what makes him special? How is he different than any other man getting up at a podium giving an opinion?

It seems that opening this door now takes the legs out from anything the prophet says. For example, the 2015 revelation restricting children of homosexual couples from receiving saving ordinances was called "revelation" at the time, yet 4 years later they overturned it. Why is it that lowly old me sitting in priesthood in 2015 hearing this I knew immediately that that policy was not from God, yet our beloved prophet who supposedly speaks to God could not figure that out, and yet forced the policy? And yet 4 years later I'm proved right when they have another "revelation" overturning the policy. No apology or anything for all the hurt it caused to the LGBT community. People literally kill themselves over the pain these types of policies create.

Another example: Do you think God made people with same-sex attraction (IE they were born that way)? Or do you believe that is a choice? The church has recently taken a stance that they are, in fact, born that way. This is something they changed dramatically from just 10-20 years ago. I was taught as a youth just a couple decades ago that homosexuals were sexual deviants who were choosing to live a life of sin and promiscuity. I was taught that masturbation would turn you gay. General authorities taught this. Now that has completely changed and we are taught that homosexuality is not a choice.

I believe that in the next 20-30 years the church will allow eternal gay temple marriage. Sounds crazy? It was probably equally as difficult for white members in the 1940's & 1950's to believe that the church would change it's doctrine on black people being cursed and allowing black people the blessings of the temple. This was doctrine back then, and it changed. I really hope they change their doctrine on gay temple marriage. Do you realize how devastating it is for a gay member of the church (especially youth) to sit on Sunday and be told that even though God made you that way, there is a fatal flaw in you on who you are attracted to and therefore you are expected to either live a life of celibacy or be with someone you are not naturally attracted to you entire life just so you can fit into the system that is oppressing you and please those leaders? That is devastating and causes extreme mental distress, including suicide. There is a reason teen suicide is extremely high in the State of Utah. The church needs to figure this out.

[ashlibradford]

I am still laughing about the Moses scene with the music and glasses!!! 😂😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

[lexingtonconcord]

You guys do a great job describing difficult topics.

[danielsimon]

Thank you for this videos. I had a very impactful experience that led me to go to and become a member of the church. But despite all the signs and everything that happened i still struggled to accept many things in the history of the church and it’s leaders. Your videos made things a bit more clear.

[exbrotherbryce]

Blood atonement is evil. I find it troubling that a prophet of God would teach something so horrific.

[AbiGodinha]

I’m glad you didn’t shy away from this. This has always been a point of curiosity for me and I’ve often wondered how you guys reconcile those harsh words with your atonement focused teachings today. Something that really stands out to me is how you guys can separate the prophecy of a prophet from his personal opinions.

[heberfrank]

Paul in the New Testament teaches a version of blood atonement:

1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
...
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH, that THE SPIRIT MAY BE SAVED in the day of the Lord Jesus.
--1 Cor 5