Blood atonement

During the 1856-57 Reformation Brigham Young and his counselor preached that some sins require the sinner's own blood; the Church now calls it rhetoric and says it is not doctrine.

What the Church claims

Prophets teach Christ's gospel from the pulpit and do not lead the Saints into false or dangerous doctrine.

Once the evidence is in, this claim: Weak. Brigham Young taught blood atonement from the pulpit and the Church now repudiates it, which contradicts the claim directly: a president did teach as doctrine what the Church itself calls false and dangerous. The separate and more sensational allegation, that killings were carried out under it at Young's direction, is not established, and that is what keeps this from untenable.

The record

On 1856-09-21 Brigham Young taught that Christ's blood was shed for sin 'yet men can commit sins which it can never remit', sins that 'must be atoned for by the blood of the man' (JD 4:53-54).
In the same meeting his counselor Jedediah M. Grant said some members 'need to have their blood shed' and proposed a committee and 'a place designated, where we can shed their blood' (JD 4:49-50).
On 1857-02-08 Young asked: when a brother or sister has committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood, 'will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?' (JD 4:219-220).
The Church's essay concedes leaders taught that 'some sins were so serious that the perpetrator's blood would have to be shed', calls it incendiary rhetoric, and says it is likely that in at least one instance a few Latter-day Saints acted on it.
On 1889-12-12 the First Presidency and Twelve issued an official declaration denying that apostates had been killed. On 2010-06-16, the day before Ronnie Lee Gardner's firing-squad execution, the Church stated that blood atonement 'is not a doctrine' of the Church.

The moving target

1856-1857: Some sins require the sinner's own blood for forgiveness.
1889-12-12: No apostate has ever been killed by the Church; the charge is fiction.
2010-06-16: Strong 19th-century language was rhetorical; blood atonement is not Church doctrine.
2014-05: Rhetoric meant to frighten members into conformity; likely acted on in at least one instance.

The exchange

FAIR; historian Paul Peterson (cited in the Church essay)

It was revivalist hyperbole in an age of fiery oratory; there is no evidence anyone was 'blood atoned' on Brigham Young's orders, and the lurid stories come from anti-Mormon exposés.

The answer: The 'no documented order' point is fair and critics often overreach here. But the claim under test is about teaching, not body counts: the prophet and his counselor taught from the Tabernacle pulpit that Christ's atonement does not cover certain sins and that killing such sinners would be an act of love. That is a doctrine of salvation contrary to the Church's present teaching, preached months before Mountain Meadows, and the Church's own essay allows it was acted on at least once.

What they get right: Historians have not documented a Church-ordered program of executions; claims of systematic 'Danite' killings in Utah rest on weak sources.

FAIR; Gospel Topics, 'Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints'

The teaching described what God may require in the eternities, not anything men were authorized to do on earth. The Church has formally repudiated any human application of it, by name.

The answer: That is a coherent modern reading, but it is not what was preached. Brigham Young's 8 February 1857 sermon names sins for which a man's blood should be spilled 'upon the ground' by someone who loves him enough to do it; the setting is this life and the agent is a person with a knife. Jedediah M. Grant preached the same thing from the same pulpit the previous September, with Young sitting behind him. A church that has to reinterpret its prophet's plain words in order to make them safe has already conceded the claim under test: the pulpit taught something the Church now says was never true.

What they get right: The repudiation is genuine, unambiguous and published by the Church in its own voice rather than extracted from it.

FAIR; a standard move in Church curriculum on difficult history

Every 19th-century American denomination said things its heirs disown. Judging Brigham Young by the sensibilities of 2026 is presentism.

The answer: Presentism is a real error, but it does not reach this claim, because the objection is not that the sermons offend modern taste. It is that the Church's own safeguard — that a prophet will never lead the Saints astray — has to survive a prophet teaching, in God's name and from the Church's principal pulpit, a doctrine the Church now disclaims. Other denominations are not held to this standard because they do not claim it. This one claims it, and the claim is what is being measured.

Both cases at full strength

The skeptics' case

The sermons are in the Church's own published record and say what critics say they say. The modern Church repudiates the idea as 'not doctrine'. So either the prophet taught false soteriology from the pulpit in the name of God, or he used the threat of sanctified killing as a rhetorical device to control his people. Neither option fits a guarantee that the prophet will not lead the Saints astray, and the second has uncomfortable proximity to the 1857 violence the Church's own essay describes.

The apologetic case

Frontier preachers of the 1850s routinely used violent hyperbole; the Saints understood Young's idiom; no one was executed on his order; the Reformation's actual program was rebaptism and catechism. The Church has repeatedly denied the practice and disclaims the doctrine.

What would change this

Evidence that the JD reports materially misstate the sermons; conversely, documentary proof of Church-ordered killings would raise this to 4-5.

Sources

An independent project. Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with any organization cited here. Summaries are written here; short quotations are attributed and linked. Every page names its sources so that it can be corrected, and every page can be challenged.