Talk:Blood atonement

takes controversial points for granted
It is strongly debated weather or not Joseph Smith practiced or preached polygamy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnBUfIDl0gE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C581:F960:9F33:94B3:C7DE:1E96 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I hope you can see why a YouTube video by what could charitably be called an amateur historian isn't a useful source to contest accepted history. XeCyranium (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Untitled
Having studied this issue in depth, I have tried to keep this as NPOV as possible, showing arguments from both critics and Latter-day Saints, but have taken a more moderate approach from a historian’s point of view and the most recent research on the subject. Additions are welcome. Due to the controversial nature of this page, I would prefer deletions to be discussed on the talk page prior to deletion, in order to keep NPOV and consistency. (Comment taken from article; not sure who wrote it).

"The blood atonement doctrine is often confused with the unrelated so-called "blood oaths" that were part of the Latter-day Saint Endowment ceremony prior to 1990 (see below)."

I haven't been able to find any reasonably unbiased source for this statement--aside from books in the vein of "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" and "One Nation Under Gods". I'd appreciate a citation of this, as "below" doesn't seem to shed any light on the issue. --S.B.


 * Can you clarify your question? I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking for references where there is confusion, (the Tanners state that one should not confuse the two in some of their works) or are you asking for references on the oaths? Or are you aksing for documentation on temple changes? Or something else? Also, so we can properly address, what is your definition of a "reasonably unbiased source?" I'd hardly call Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" and "One Nation Under Gods" 'unbiased', as you seem to...? Please clarify? -Visorstuff 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

POV paragraph
I removed

Another clearer example of the practice blood atonement is the 1866 murder of the former-slave, Thomas Coleman (or Colburn), who was in good standing as a member of the LDS Church. However, as Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn has documented, Coleman was apparently secretly courting a white Mormon woman, contrary to both territorial law and Mormon doctrine at the time. At one of their clandestine meetings behind the old Arsenal (on what is now Capitol Hill in Salt Lake) on December 11, Coleman was discovered by "friends" of the woman. The group of vigilantes brained Coleman with a large rock, and then took his own bowie knife and slit his throat so deeply from ear to ear he was nearly decapitated. He was also castrated, and further mimicing the blood covenants of the temple ritual, his right breast was sliced open. A pre-penciled placard was then pinned to his corpse stating, "NOTICE TO ALL NIGGERS - TAKE WARNING - LEAVE WHITE WOMEN ALONE." The ritualistic secnario of the murder seems to be in direct obedience to a public statement made by Brigham Young on March 3, 1863: "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, vol. 10, p. 110.) Even though it was the middle of winter, a grave was dug and Coleman's body disposed of in less than three hours after its discovery. Tellingly, less than twelve hours after that, Judge Elias Smith, first cousin of Joseph Smith, appointed George Stringham (a Mormon ruffian and vigilante with ties to Porter Rockwell, Jason Luce, and William Hickman) as the foreman of the Coroner's Jury; they briefly met and summarily dismissed the case as committed by person or persons unknown to the jury, abruptly ending all official enquiry into the bizarre murder. (See Quinn, Extensions of Power, p. 256 and Daily Union Vedette, 15 December 1866.) I tried to edit it to meet neutrality standards but couldn't do it and I don't have access to Quinn's book so I am bringing it here -- Trödel 06:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologetic statement about millstone
"Some modern Mormon apologetics also compare Young’s statement to the statement of Jesus Christ in the New Testament that it would be better for those who offend children to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the depths of the sea than to be born." I cannot find any reference at FAIR or on the web to support this statement, so I'm putting it here for now until something can be located. Maybe it's in print somewhere? Bochica 03:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale reversion
I confess to having recently made a wholesale reversion on this page (-3,848). I don't like doing that and don't think it's generally appropriate, but the mass of edits by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey appeared to result in information that was incredibly POV, and I just didn't know where to start with my revisions. (Apart from incidents of pure vandalism, the edit made by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey that asserted that blood atonement is a "fundamental" doctrine of today's LDS Church and is currently practiced in the church is probably one of the most outrageously false statements about the LDS Church I've ever come across in a Wikipedia article!) Some of the material I reverted could and should probably be added back in, but I think I personally would need to request for assistance in attempting to do this. –SESmith 09:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * SESmith, you will find that most of the material added by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey to the article was copied verbatim from the MRM site from the article Blood Atonement - If It Was Never Taught, Why Do So Many Mormons Believe It?. The same material and quotes are already covered later in the article anyway - I immediately recognized the material added because I had already referenced the site and that same article. There are one or two quotes that were added that we can add back in however. Bochica 13:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, that makes me feel better about what I did since not only was it repetitive it probably violated WP:COPY. Thanks for the heads up—I'm not overly familiar with this article yet. -SESmith 13:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Couple of points. 1) the materials were vetted and are not copyvio from mrm.  2) verifiability and not truth. The Salt Lake Tribune reports this doctrine is still practiced.   3) These new edits read like an ad for the Mormon Church.  I could request protection for this article.  Changes reverted.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This most certainly is a copy verbatim of passages from the mrm site - it even has a few of the typos from that page (it gets the SLT ref wrong for the James Wood incident). Also the SLT article does not say that the doctrine is still practiced, in fact it juxtaposes the experience of Wood's interaction with local church leaders with another account of Arthur Gary Bishop, where a local leader told Bishop that the doctrine of blood atonement ended with Jesus Christ. The SLT reports only that the concept exists to varying extents within Mormon culture, but not that the church currently practices, teaches, or supports it. It even states that there is disagreement among historians "whether there were any actual cases of blood atonement." Like Sesmith, I think that a lot of this could be worked into the article describing how the concept exists within Mormon culture and folklore, but to say that blood atonement as such is a fundamental doctrine and practice of the LDS church is very misleading if not outright wrong. Reverting. --FyzixFighter 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection Requested
I have requested reversion and protection of this article pursuant to WP:COI. The materials claimed as copyvio are quotes from Mormon Church officials. I see no copyvio with referring to their quotes or statements in this article. Have requested reversion and locking of article to discuss with imparticla editors regarding content. Clear and obvious POV pushing in the article by LDS editors. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. I do not claim to be Mormon and I am in no conflict of interest. If anything, POV pushing is claiming a doctrine is "fundamental" to a religion when there is zero indication on their official website that they teach or practice the doctrine. You're not just writing that the SLT reports that it is fundamental, you are saying it is fundamental, which is POV. Copryright is violated whenever you take material verbatim from a source (apart from a single quote). Even if this is just a series of quotes from LDS leaders, if you copy the structure of the sequential quotes or the format and exact language in which ideas are presented, you are violating copyright. I checked the reference and it is a blatant violation of WP:COPY. This cannot be tolerated by WP and any request to protect it from a member who is violating copyright will probably be met with skepticism. -SESmith 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I take it you have no objection to the quotes of brigham young stating the marrying someone who is black was punishable by death under the blood atonement doctrine or the quotes of the SLT stating LDS Church officials as recently as 1998 were asking murderers to submit to execution for their faith? I do not care to argue about the other matters with you provided we are in agreement on these areas. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not. But you can't just cut and paste the quotes and discussion of them off a website without violating copyright. It must be written in your own words. And to maintain POV NPOV, commentary about what modern church leaders and commentators say about these quotes and claims should also be added. -SESmith 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Was that a freudian slip? to maintain POV.   Shouldn't that be maintain NPOV? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol. Tends to happen when I get going with the WP acronyms. I think you probably understood my meaning. -SESmith 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You also might want to take a look at the actual SLT article before making claims about what it says (I've downloaded a text copy of it and can send it to you via email if you can't find a copy of it). The article is actually from 1994 (not 1998, that's one of the typos that carried over when you copy-pasted from the MRM site) and it's the allegation of the defense that a local leader visited, to which the LDS first presidency responded by filing a document "denying the doctrine as it has been popularized" along with the reprint of the McConkie 1978 statement. The paper also recounts another local leader in the early 80s telling a convicted murderer on death row the exact opposite - that blood atonement is not applicable today. Either way, local leaders do not set the doctrine or practices of the church, making this an element of mormon culture and folklore and speculation, but not actual practiced doctrine. --FyzixFighter 03:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct that local sources do not set doctrine and policy for the church (which changes every other general conference based on which way the wind is blowing at temple square), what local sources do is report on the statements of the church vs. the actions of church leaders and members. In other words, the SLT has been known for years to call the church on the carpet on its public misrepresentations. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's the actions of local church members only that must be made clear and separated from official LDS Church doctrine. Your edits did not make the distinction. Such a distinction is very basic to getting NPOV right, and I wish you could reassure us that that is your ultimate goal, as your comments here don't seem terribly imbued with NPOV. -SESmith 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The people are the church. The church is the people.   Church leaders should know better.  SLT has recorded and asserted church leaders are still advising convicted murderers they should allow their "blood to be spilled" (not lethal injection, not the electric chair -- firing squad or beheading), these are notable facts.  Brigham Youngs teachings and the false statements in the article claiming he never made them need to be resolved.   These types of inaccurate materials and whitewashing harm the church's image and public faith and trust more than the unvarnished statements of its past leaders.  In addition to lowering the overall quality of this project.  Our project is not a tabloid for faith inspiring LDS stories, but for encyclopedic writings about the real LDS church, not its public relations front.   That's the sincere opinion of Jeff the humble Nephite.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The people may be the church, but realistically there is a vast difference between actions of individual Mormons and official doctrines or practices that are authorized by the LDS Church. NPOV must acknoweldge the difference. That was my point. It's not our concern at all how the statements of anyone affects any institution, either pro or con, so I'm not sure what the purpose of your last 4 sentences are. If the LDS church makes claims about Young's teachings that you feel are lies, WP still reports them to maintain NPOV. No one editor or body holds the exclusive hold on "the truth" of history or what it means (in WP-land, anyway). -SESmith 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's make the effort here and see how it turns out. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (frelling edit conflict) You're absolutely right - Local church leaders should no better, which is why the first presidency responded the way they did. The SLT in that 1994 article only reports the allegations a single instance of this happening (and the subsequent action by the higher-ups in the church hierarchy), but also reports an instance where the local leadership did know better and didn't support this doctrine. In all honesty, the more I read that article, for the most part I really enjoy its attempts at balance and succinct yet broad summary of the concept. It's definitely a worthwhile source, or at least an indicator of other good sources (Gillepsie's an Gardener's works especially look intriguing). --FyzixFighter 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the 1998 article? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said before (though probably not clearly), there is no 1998 article. There is just a 1994 article. The 1998 reference on the MRM page is a typo. I did the search myself to see what the article(s) really said and only turned up a Nov 5, 1994 article, from which both quotes that the MRM uses appear to come from. The search did not turn up any article on Nov 5, 1998 D1 SLT that talked about blood atonement. You have read the actual 1994 article, right? Not just the MRM summary? --FyzixFighter 05:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from a neutral party
Hi all. I'm an editor of no opinion with regard to the LDS (I am Welsh and agnostic if that helps), but I was involved in Mr. Merkey's recent RfC (again as a neutral party) and would like to help out here if possible; I noticed this dispute because of the request for protection. I don't think protection is necessary at present, since the issues are being discussed - protecting doesn't endorse one version or another and is only used to prevent edit warring, which should be avoidable here if all parties are willing to discuss rather than revert.

I don't know anything about blood atonement, but for starters I would say that the article at present is poorly laid-out. The lead section doesn't really explain what blood atonement is (from either aspect, as described in the text) and, per WP:LEAD, shouldn't include a lengthy blockquote as an example. That belongs further down in the main body of the article, if it needs to appear at all. With regard to quotes, there's no problem with including these so long as they're accurate and discussed in the article from a neutral POV and in original phrasing. I would also suggest that the Mormonism Research Ministry is probably not a reliable source for quotations of any sort, since it's obviously a anti-Mormon campaigning body with an inherent POV. We should try to obtain quotes from their original sources and reference these directly. --YFB ¿  03:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of your assessments except your misrepresentations you were "neutral" in my RFC (which was closed and withdrawn and the submitter indef blocked for legal threats) and that MRM is "anti-mormon". Calling any criticism of a subject "anti" is far from NPOV.  anti-mormon is an attack term used by mormons to label a group as "satanic" or "apostates".  It's a very charged and derogatory term. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please leave the disputed tag. See my edit summary as to why. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's using "anti-Mormon" in the sense of it being "satanic". He's stated he's not a Mormon. Correct me if I am wrong YFB, but I believe he's saying that it's clear that MRM has an agenda to oppose the teachings of Mormonism and so may not be the best source for NPOV material.


 * Incidentally YFB, I appreciate your comments and input and would agree with your suggestions. -SESmith 03:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What you think and what I know are different things. I live in the worlds capital of this group and have had dealings with them for years -- at the highest levels of their organization.  3 + 1 is not going to work here.  anti-mormon is a hate term - it is a secret signal programmed into these folks by their leaders to view anyone associated with such a group as servants of the devil.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of the connotations "anti-Mormon" can carry and I don't think you know what the commenter meant; I was merely pointing out that it is unlike the commenter meant it in that way since he appears unversed in the world of "Mormonism" and "anti-Mormonism". Maybe he could enlighten us on what he meant. Take then what I said, which is equally applicable: "MRM has an agenda to oppose the teachings of Mormonism and so may not be the best source for NPOV material." Please remain WP:CIVIL. -SESmith 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for validating the nature and use of the term "anti-mormon" as a perjorative of hate. BTW, people who quote WP:*.* all the time may not be observing it themselves based on real world experience on WP. :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not written anything in the nature of, "what you think and what I know are different things." I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to ensure that the article can develop in a NPOV way. If that approach is offending you I apologise. But I would appreciate it if we could quit making references to Mormons as unreasonable users of "secret signals" deliberately throwing around "perjoratives" of "hate". I think we need to assume good faith. Mormons use the term "anti-Mormon" to refer to people who attack beliefs that are dear to their hearts. Yes, it's POV, but there's nothing necessarily nefarious about it. If you can't assume good faith here (meaning on WP), there are plenty of other webpages that can host your assumptions of bad faith. -SESmith 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, I think it'd be better for everyone if we restrict comments here to the content of the article. We are all, I would hope, pretty well versed in Wikipedia's policies on civility etc., so it'd be great if we could all adhere to them without arguing about whether or not we're doing so. Mr. Merkey, please don't personalise this discussion unnecessarily and SESmith, please assume the assumption of good faith. Let's get this discussion back on the track it's supposed to be, which is what useful edits can we make to bring this article in line with NPOV? --YFB ¿  03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree and apologise if I was out of line. Thanks for your intervention, YFB. The goal of the discussion which you set out is one I wholeheartedly agree with and would support. -SESmith 03:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(7[!] edit conflicts, sorry)
 * OK, I appreciate that you were offended by the very existence of the RfC (although the submitted was indef blocked at his own request and the "legal threat" he made was clearly sarcasm - I have no comment about that because I don't understand/am not party to the reasons for his leaving) but I honestly, truly approached that as a neutral party and did my best to address my comments accordingly. I had never heard anything about you or your off-Wikipedia difficulties before taking part there and still have no reason whatsoever to bear you any ill-will, although we disagreed (apparently on points of principle) about what is acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. I consider that chapter to be fully closed following Guy's discussions with you and I'm only here because I'd like to work constructively with you to improve Wikipedia articles. So I'm sorry for bringing up the RfC again, I just wanted to be upfront about my sudden appearance here. I'm happy to work from a clean slate if you can accept my input here as neutral - I faithfully promise that it is.


 * I'm sorry if my choice of phrasing was inappropriate, but I'm not Mormon so I didn't use "anti-Mormon" as an attack term in any sense. However we need to be careful to assess the motivations of our sources (and hence their reliability) and it seems naive to assume that we can rely for solid facts on the writings of a body which uses the tagline "challenging the claims of Mormonism since 1979". I've just seen their About page and note that they specifically reject the term "anti-Mormon", so I will retract it. Nonetheless I am wary about using any content from that page as a source for claims in our article and we must, of course, not copy non-quote text directly. Since the quotes they use appear to be attributed mostly to published works, it would be better to try to obtain copies thereof and quote directly from them to avoid any possible misquotes, loss of context or other inaccuracy. --YFB ¿  03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's what I suggested at the start of this dialouge. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely neutral, because I've contributed a lot to this article in the past, but my take is that while much of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's added material is appropriate for the article, it needs to be included in a more acceptable way, consistent with Wikipedia policy, particularly WP:OR and WP:NPOV. But any relevant, verifiable quotes are of course fair game for this article, if added in the right way. CO GDEN  03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I think one of the problems was that some edits included quotations which were part of a larger edit that violated WP:COPY by cutting and pasting from a webpage which was not terribly NPOV. There's no reason the quotes used in those edits can't be used as long as editors write their own material and keep it NPOV. -SESmith 03:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like we are all on the same page and are in at least the beginnings of agreement. Let's have no more "anti-mormon" tag placed on sources, people, or groups.  Use of this term is no more acceptable that using any other charged term.   Let's proceed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just another comment, I haven't been following this article for a long time, but I'm not happy with how it now stands. There are too many huge quotes, a strange structure, and still a lot of original research. Also, some good material that was in the article in 2006 has been deleted. It needs a major overhaul. I started by rewriting the intro. CO GDEN  04:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment, there's no good flow at all there. It's a confusing intro which sounds like Old Testament analysis.  Take a stab at it, and I'll jump in when you get it to a better state.   Leave the tags, BTW.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs corrections already
"There is no conclusive evidence, however, that Young directed any [specific] killings based on the doctrine."


 * Note the weasel word "specific".

I think we know based on materials in the Journal of Discourses this statement is not backed up by reliable sources. The sources state:

Crimes Related to Blood Atonement
Murder: "I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God..." (Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 5:296).

Adultery: "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, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case, and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands" (Brigham Young, JOD 3:247).

Stealing: "If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing. I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity ... If I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do, to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people" (Brigham Young, JOD 1:108).

Marriage to a person of black skin: "Shall I tell you of the law of God in regards 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" (Brigham Young, JOD 10:110)

Covenant Breaking: "I say, there are men and women that I would advise to got to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye ... I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood ... Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid" (Jedediah M. Grant, JOD 4:49-51).

Grant would later be quoted in the Deseret News, as saying, "We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him..."(7/27/1854).

Heber C. Kimball stated, "If men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants" (JOD 4:375). The phrase "according to their covenants" refers Mormon Temple Covenants.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Salt Lake Tribune quotations
The Salt Tribune reported in 1994 that the Mormon Church actively practices the Doctrine of Blood Atonement even into modern times. An article titled "Concept of Blood Atonement Survives in Utah Despite Repudiation," Peggy Fletcher Stack, staff writer for the Salt Lake Tribune, wrote, "In the past decade, potential jurors in every Utah capital homicide were asked whether they believed in the Mormon concept of 'blood atonement'" (11/5/94, p.D1),

During the 1998 trial of child-killer James Edward Wood, a Utah Mormon, who allegedly murdered 11-year-old Jaralee Underwood, The Salt Lake Tribune reported vists by LDS Church leaders who "talked to him about shedding his own blood" (Salt Lake Tribune, 11/5/98, D1).

Let's vet and add these quotes too. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Jeff's page protection request has been fulfilled by Sr13 and the page is now protected from editing for a week. However, it seems from the discussion above that the edit war has been defused and we may now be making constructive progress towards an NPOV article. I've therefore asked Sr13 to reconsider the protection and hope that he will decide to lift it. If he does so, I trust that all contributors will undertake to discuss their edits here rather than edit warring. I think it would be prudent to leave the two dispute tags in place for the time being, but we should try to thrash out a mutually-acceptable version of the article so that they can be removed. I'd like to leave this discussion as far as possible to those who know more about the subject than I do, but I will keep a close eye on this article and will ask for the protection to be reinstated at the first sign of edit warring. Could everybody please consider themselves to be under "1RR" and use the bold, revert, discuss cycle instead from now on? --YFB ¿  06:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sr13 shares my hope for continued constructive discussion and has reduced the duration of protection to 1 day. How about we see how many changes can be agreed upon here over the next 24 hours and instituted at the end of the protection? --YFB ¿  06:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no rush to unprotect the page. There are legitimate issues to discuss and everyone needs to work together towards this goal.  The article should remain protected until all editors here come to conensus.  If that takes a week, then it takes a week.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the decision to protect the page, because I don't think it was necessary. However, I'll respect SR13's decision. Meanwhile, however, I'm making a few steps toward the necessary overhaul. What we need before any progress is made a logical framework for the article, which I tried to introduce. CO GDEN  23:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * COGDEN, as you are overhauling, I think this is the article to clarify the differences between these often confused items:
 * Blood atonement (historical - may even want to discuss the difference between self-shedding versus theocratical judgement and enforcement)
 * Blood atonement (apologetic or modern - ie christ, blood spillilng in capital punishment, ancient sacrifices, etc.)
 * Oath of vengence against the United States and belief that the blood of the prophets will be avenged by God (D&C 135, 3 Nephi 9:5,7-9,11)
 * Temple oath penalties signs
 * Redemption of zion to come by shedding of blood or by preaching (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/63/29-34#29) (zion cannot be redeemed by shedding of blood in the last days as it was in the days of Moses, and "blood atonement" for outsiders/innocent is forbidden - hence the theocracy statemetn by McConkie (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/19-32#19 see D&C 13219-32 - which was discussed during the Mountain Meadows massacre trial)


 * I think to many who do not study this issue fully these three seem to get lumped in together and are seen as the same thing - which in my honest opinion is what makes it scary to many. Each individual idea is not so unusual from various perspectives, it is when they are lumped together that they cause perceptions like Kraukauer's book gives. -Visorstuff 13:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we ought to have a section explaining these differences. CO GDEN  15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctrine of restitution?
Does anybody know where the doctrine of "restitution" came from? (The doctrine that repentance requires not just confession and forsaking of the sin, but restitution as well) The present article says it originated with Willard Richards and George A. Smith, but I can't find any citation to back that up. It was clearly being taught in 1856 by the First Presidency, but who came up with the idea? I don't think it was Joseph Smith. This is an important background element on which blood atonement is based. CO GDEN  00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of POV and citation tags
i removed POV and citation tags that was added today to one section. in doing so, i am not endorsing the current version (which I know can be imporoved), but i am noting that no reason for the tag was given. Please add it back, after you put feedback as to why on the talk page in its own section. Adding a tag without giving reason does not help improve the article but leads the reader to wonder, if there are sources given, but it says sources are needed, which statements are verifiable? What is POV and by which side? It causes more questions and is against wikipedia policy to do so. -Visorstuff 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasons were previously stated, however, based upon the proper placement of the accurate verified statements of Brigham Young, I no longer feel the tags are needed. The article accurately depicts Brigham Young discussing openly the doctrine.  At this time in Church History, for whatever reason, Young felt it necessary to hold such a doctrine to preserve the Church, and I do not think anyone alive today could truly appreciate why he was guided to do so.  Showing the true history gives much more power and color to the history of the Saints.    This is quite mild compared to the commandments of God in the Old Testament regarding Hebrew history.  There are many accounts where the Isrealites were ordered to wipe out entire cultures in the Holy Lands.  The accuracy and tone of this article has improved a lot.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that the article has reached such a high level of quality, the paragraph on Native American History I wanted to add to the article to improve it I can now add. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Parallels with Cherokee blood revenge
I removed the parallels in the introduction between blood atonement and the Cherokee law of blood revenge because I'm almost certain this is original research. Normally I give editors time to link new concepts to citations, but when it is framed in the introduction as being a fundamental parallel, I think it's best to revert. If someone can find a citation, we might put this somewhere other than the introduction. CO GDEN  17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you feel this way. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Previously existing materials on blood revenge are relevant to the article. I will restructure the materials and place them back into the article -- even in the introduction if I feel this is where they belong. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, although it seems that the parallels you're drawing between the two concepts are valid, we need to be careful to avoid original research or undue weight. If you can find (preferably multiple, scholarly) reliable sources which recognise such a parallel specifically, we could place a section on those parallels in the body of the article. They definitely don't belong in the lead as they're not directly relevant to the doctrine itself - the lead should be as concise as possible and ancillary or related topics should come after the general description, history etc. in the main body of the article, if at all.


 * I suspect there are many parallels that could be drawn between this doctrine and other religious concepts - Deuteronomy and Leviticus come to mind, not to mention Sharia ideas about capital punishment - so we need to identify detailed reasons why these parallels are particularly notable (and provide citations from academic works on the topic) if we're going to include Cherokee practices specifically rather than just linking through to Capital punishment. Having a section on Cherokee beliefs without similar sections on every other comparable religious perspective would be undue weight in my opinion, unless there's some reason to believe that there's a causal link between the Cherokee concepts and LDS doctrine. --YFB ¿  18:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good explanation. I think the link is more than casual.  Mormons claim they are practicing an ancient Native American Religion.  Mormons also claim they found gold plates in the homeland of the Iroquois.  These are both notable points.  Most LDS doctrines and practices resemble Eastern Woodlands Culture.   Either Smith was a fraud and stole Iroquoian Culture and blended it with Christianity and wrote a great fiction novel, or he really was writing about Native Practices in ancient times.  Articles about religious belief can be very hard to avoid OR, I agree.  However, the same rules apply to WP:ASR in using self-referncing LDS Church sources as well.  Where is the line?  Something we have to discuss and balance. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Religious articles have no special problems in avoiding original research. In a religious article, there should always be a citation to either scripture, sermon, commentary, or academic research. Referencing LDS Church sources is not original research, especially if used to show current church doctrine or policy. CO GDEN  21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with it being added into the article, provided that someone aside from Wikipedia editors have written on the topic. Cogden and I don't introduce our own research into the articles, as that is original research and against Wikpedia policies. Merkey, has anyone written on this aside from you? I'm not familiar with a source that has been published...


 * Also, if we do include it should have its own section in the article, not be in intermixed with other concepts. -Visorstuff 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Materials from sources other than the LDS church can appear in LDS articles if its related content. No offense guys, but some of these statements are ridiculous.  Based on your description, the article about God should be deleted since it fails WP:V - how can you prove God really exists?   The article is about peoples beliefs in God.  I can also simply state the materials without using the words "parallel" and it then complies with all of Wikipedia's policy.  I have seen too many edit summaries making statements "official church doctrine says".  Guess what, its not about official church doctrine (although I realize LDS editors are barred by the church directives from editing freely, I am not).   With that, I will add back to the article those sources with citations.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we might be talking past each other. I can't tell based on your comments whether or not you understand WP:V and WP:OR. What needs to be verifiable is not the truth of what is stated; you only have to verify that someone reliable stated it outside of Wikipedia. If the only source of the Cherokee parallel is you, then you can't include it here. If, on the other hand, somebody has noted the parallel in a publication, it's fair game. CO GDEN  08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand these concepts quite well. I also understand POV pushing and whitewashing.  As for your other statements, I can include it.  Sounds like we need to address LDS editing and the Church's control of Wikipeida Editing in the framework of an RFC.  Are we able to work on the POV pushing or do we need to enlist the comments of the community?   Can we work this out ourselves or not?  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you referred to specific NPOV problems, so that we know what you are talking about. The Cherokee parallel is not an NPOV issue, it's an original research issue. What other problems do you see with the article as it now stands, and how would you suggest we fix them? CO GDEN  20:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Retagged
I have retagged the article based on POV pushing by several LDS editors/admins misusing admin tools and converting a historical article into a propoganda piece and disclaimer for the Mormon Church. I am preparing an RFC on this article and associated matters. Do not remove the tags. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, while you're free to pursue this in other channels, I would urge you to consider trying to work things through here just a bit longer. It seemed we were making good progress a couple of days ago and now things have taken a turn for the worse again - I don't think matters are so bad that we need to escalate this quite yet. I'd really like to give more input to this discussion as I feel a half-way house could easily be reached here, but I'm currently in the middle of my finals at university so I don't have nearly as much time as I'd like. If you're prepared to hold off on the RfC for a day or so, I can try to work out a compromise here over the weekend. :In the mean time, is there any chance you could try to find some published sources (that meet WP:V) to support your statements about the parallels between Mormon and Cherokee concepts? If there's solid evidence to back up that idea, I genuinely think it would make a valid section in the article (although we may need to balance it with mention of other religious ideas on capital punishment). Also, regarding the sentence you removed about "no direct evidence" of the LDS Church practicing the doctrine, the best way to counter that statement would be to provide some evidence to the contrary. From an NPOV, it's hard to see how we can write the article and not make mention of the Church's official status on the matter. If they did in fact practice it officially, then it would be POV to exclude that fact but we'd need a citation to show that they did. If not, the same applies for a counter-statement. I would really like to see both parties providing scholarly references on this, otherwise whatever ends up in the article is essentially original research.
 * I think it would be better for everyone involved if we can avoid resorting to an RfC at this stage. If it becomes necessary at a later date, it may be more favourably received if it's filed by a neutral party, otherwise there's a good chance it'll become diverted from topic by mud-slinging. I'll take that responsibility if I see a genuine obstacle to progress but right now, I think an RfC would be a step in the wrong direction. Peace, --YFB ¿  18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. On whether or not the church as an institution (as opposed to individuals) has practiced blood atonement, if someone has cited evidence of this in a published source, it can certainly go in the article. But I haven't seen any such allegation. The most anybody has been able to present direct evidence on, to my knowledge, is enforcement of the doctrine by individuals, which this article discusses. Even then, I haven't seen any direct evidence of any individual (other than the Utah government) killing someone in order that their spilled blood would save them from damnation. Merkey, if you have any citations to the contrary, let's discuss, because that would be an important thing to include in the article. CO GDEN  20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My preference is to always resolve disagreements on the talk page first. However, several items I feel compelled to address: 1) COGDEN edited the article while is was protected to remove and reinsert statements which failed WP:V and were contradicted by church sources - i.e. he reinerted statements Brigham Young never taught blood atonement. This is an abuse of admin tools 2) The entire first two sections of the article contain yet more OR and POV edits.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried hard to include citations in my edits, and when I haven't, I'm almost always sure that one can be found. As to violation of admin tools, you argued for protection, and you got what you wanted: the prevention of edits by non-admins. The purpose of protection is not to prevent progress on the article. Personally, I disagreed with the decision to protect. CO GDEN  21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally would love to see an RFC on this article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, the editors you are dealing with on this article are the most open and frank LDS editors I've met - they definitely are not "whitewashers" of history. They are trusted in the Wikipedian community and have been around for many years. They do not shy away from controversy - rather COGDEN and myself have both been accused of introducing too much controversial material in the past.

Second, I really don't think an RFC would be a bad thing. It would draw attention to your edits and help other wikipedians help guide you so you don't think the treatment of LDS editors toward you is discriminatory. You'll find it - and have in the cherokee articles you've edited - when you edit and discuss as you do.

Third, the article is not protected, so anyone can make any edits they need. Edits made to other parts of the article not in dispute is a non-issue in any case.

Fourth, you said that COGDEN "reinerted statements Brigham Young never taught blood atonement." I'm missing where he did that? I see a few more references he added in that said Young did teach it. Can you clarify?

Fifth, you still have not provided specific reasons for the tag. let me provide an example of what I mean:


 * This section violates POV because it only uses sources from the Journal of Discourses, a one-time LDS publication.

Or


 * This section is propaganda because it contains a repudiation and clarification of the teaching by LDS church in 1889 that contradicts well-publicized accounts of blood atonement heard in Washington leading up to the Utah War, and that it affected utah views on captial punishment according to the SL Tribune.

Those are examples of specific isssues one has with the article. Now, let's try again. Within the next 24 hours, can you provide specific issues you have with the article - bullet points are best. See other examples here and here and even here.

Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 22:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, although i've edited this article in the past, my purpose in this discussion is not to provide edits to the article, but to help guide this discussion and help identify what specific issues are. At this point, I don't want to get involved in content during the current dispute. However, that may change. -Visorstuff 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

image of Joseph Smith
I don't think the image of Joseph Smith before the Nauvoo Legion is appropriate in this article. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever taught the blood atonement doctrine. What Smith taught was the "blood for blood" doctrine, which is different (it was about retribution, not atonement). But he never taught that a person's blood could atone for their own sins, or at least nobody I know of has ever presented evidence of this. As far as anybody knows, the doctrine originated with Brigham Young in 1845, after Smith's death. Maybe we can get another image that would be more appropriate. CO GDEN  16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Smith's statements about blood being spilt on the groud seem to line right up with Blood atonement. It is also somewhat prophetic since his last public address he stated that should he fail to protect the mormon people, "his blood should be spilt on the ground like water".  Exactly which doctrine do you think he was referring to? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, did you read COGDEN's sentences above? The doctrines Smith taught was and that you refer to are differen than blood atonement. You seem to have confusion on the various "blood" teachings of Christianity, and als Mormonism. Just becuase he talked about blood being spilled, doesn't mean that he was referring to Blood atonement. Blood doctrines (including sacrifice, christ's atonement, blood atonement, uncleanness, vengeance, and john's famous blood water and the spirit, and the blood doctrines of justifiation and sanctification) appear in 375 verses in the Bible, and much less in the other mormmon scriptures, whcih is suprising when you consider 3/4 of the book of mormon deals with war. There are many doctrines dealing with blood - smith's blood for blood and young's blood atonement are very different things. as you are familiar with mormonism, we thought you had at least this basic understanding. -Visorstuff 20:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found at least one quotation from Smith regarding Blood Atonement where he stated that a murdered should be beheaded and his blood spilt on the ground like water. Sounds like the same doctrine.  This was not an answer to my question.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that is a view on capital punishment. Blood Atonement deals with paying sins with your own blood. Big difference, although I'm starting to see where your confusion is. -Visorstuff 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave the photo where it is and let's take a timeout for a minute and discuss this. From my research, smith taught blood atonement based upon his statements.  Tell me where I am getting this wrong? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies - lets move this discussion to the below, as the inline comments are messing up this section. You seem to be confusing punishment and atonement, as well as -Visorstuff 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current picture is misleading at best. -SESmith 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What about an image of --rogerd (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Gary Gilmore? CO GDEN  17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As Gilmore was not a religious figure, nor did he believe in blood atonment, i don't think an image of him would be appropriate, except for the section on Utah captial punishment. In any case, the picture of smith is misleading and irrelevant. It should be removed ASAP. -Visorstuff 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Caption issues
Okay – another issue – the caption of the article quotes from Smith’s last public address. The first part of the caption currently states:


 * Will you stand by me to the death? I call God and angels to witness I have unsheathed my sword with a firm and unalterable determination ... or my blood shall be spilt on the ground like water...." Lieutenant General Joseph Smith addressing the Nauvoo Legion in Nauvoo, Illinois. This was his last public address as Prophet of the Mormon Church before being arrested by the State of Illinois for burning down the Expositor, an opposition newspaper owned by William Law which exposed the Mormon Church practice of polygamy in Nauvoo. Joseph Smith was assassinated shortly afterward in Carthage Jail.

What the heck does this section have to do with blood atonement? (atoning for sins with your own blood). And by this time, was SMith still Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion? I thought that his term ended earlier that year, not June 1844.

In any case, he is talking about defending the rights of the people of Nauvoo. Here is the section of the speech in question (see http://www.cumorah.com/etexts/lastpublicaddress.txt):


 * We are American citizens. We live upon a soil for the liberties of which our fathers periled their lives and spilt their blood upon the battle-field. Those rights, so dearly purchased, shall not be disgracefully trodden under foot by lawless marauders without at least a noble effort on our part to sustain our liberties.


 * ’’’Will you all stand by me to the death,’’’ and sustain, at the peril of your lives, the laws of our country, and the liberties and privileges which our fathers have transmitted unto us, sealed with their sacred blood? (“Aye,” shouted thousands.)  He then said -- “It is well.  If you had not done it, I would have gone out there, (pointing to the west,) and would have raised up a mightier people.


 * I call upon all men, from Maine to the Rocky Mountains, and from Mexico to British America, whose hearts thrill with horror to behold the rights of freemen trampled under foot, to come to the deliverance of this people from the cruel hand of oppression, cruelty, anarchy and misrule to which they have been long made subject. Come, all ye lovers of liberty, break the oppressor’s rod, loose the iron grasp of mobocracy, and bring to condign punishment all those who trample under foot the principles of our glorious constitution and the people’s rights.  (Drawing his sword, and presenting it to heaven, he said) – ‘’’I call God and angels to witness that I have unsheathed my sword with a firm and unalterable determination’’’ that this people shall have their legal rights, and be protected from mob violence, ‘’’or my blood shall be spilt upon the ground like water,’’’ and my body consigned to the silent tomb.  While I live, I will never tamely submit to the dominion of a cursed mobocracy.  I would welcome death rather than submit to this oppression; and it would be sweet, oh, sweet to rest in the grave, rather than submit to this oppression, agitation, annoyance, confusion, and alarm upon alarm, any longer.

In this he is calling upon his people to defend their rights. Not to make people atone for their own sins.

The second part of the caption reads:


 * The History of the Church indicates that the concept of Blood Atonement was initially taught by Joseph Smith. "I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God..." (Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 5:296).'

Again, this is a vew of capital punishemnt. Even the tanners say it is related to blood atonement as it deals with shedding of blood, but not part of the concept of blood atonement itself see http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no56.htm.

The caption in other words, has no bearing on the article, and the picture of smith holding a sword is misleading. -Visorstuff 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: "Mormonism and violence" superarticle?
I've been thinking about creating a separate article called Mormonism and violence to deal with a lot of the material that is often linked with blood atonement, but really has little if anything to do with the doctrine itself, such as the Mountain Meadows massacre. It would also be a summary article for violence against Mormons, such as the Haun's Mill massacre, the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., the murder of Parley P. Pratt. I think such an article would be more informative than the way violence by Mormons is now separated from violence against Mormons, because it would include more context for why some early Mormons were so trigger-happy and vengeful. CO GDEN  17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have so many individual articles on teh topic, hauns mill, danites, mmm, utah war, etc., I wonder if a category would be more appropriate. It seems a bit strange ot have an article that simply points to other articles - unless new informaiton was added. It seems it would become a messy articel like Criticism_of_Mormonism, etc. But am curious as to what do you have in mind? Can you provide more of your thinking on this? -Visorstuff 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My thought is that it would briefly cover a lot of other articles in summary style, and then add some info that doesn't really fit anywhere else. We have lots of separate articles, such as blood atonement, Danites, Oath of Vengeance, Mormon War, Utah War, etc., but we don't have any article that ties them all together, other than the History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, and that article is so broad and comprehensive that I think the violence issues would get lost. The article would also cover several topics that don't really fit anywhere else, such as Joseph Smith's "blood for blood"/"law of God" doctrine, views on retribution, Nephi's killing of Laban, and LDS teachings on suicide, assisted suicide, corporal punishment, self defense, BofM teachings on the "justness" of war and participation of Mormons in unjust wars (Mormon Nazis, etc.), etc. CO GDEN  18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll support the idea - but not sure i love the name. Violence denotes fighting, whereas, at its core, blood atonement is a willingness to give of your own blood as an offering for your own sins. See the Confessions of John D. Lee for example. I don't think Mormon views on untimely deaths is appropriate, as it can't discuss zionistic violence by moses and others. But it may be the closest we have. perhaps you start the article and i'll use the talk page to request additional article names? -Visorstuff 22:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of photo discussion
Merkey, as I mentioned above, I think I'm starting to see where your confusion is happening. One is in the idea of atonement versus punishment; the second is blood doctrines in general. In any case, it looks like my edit didn't take (an edit conflict of some sort. The current photo caption is WAAAAAAYYY too long, and still does not deal with the article at hand. I apologize for the length of this, but I hope this context will be helpful.

In giving this context, I want to make it clear that I don't have an opinion on the veracity of Blood atonement. Especially outside of a theocracy. It is not a doctrine I advance or espouse, but think it is interesting from a historical perspective. And I’m also erring on the side that you really want to know the answers to this.

Now, as I mentioned, I think you are confusing punishment with atonement. Specifically, capital punishment with that of blood atonement. in my explanation below, please note I'm using the KJV of the bible.

In the old testament, the Law of Moses called for capital punishment for a number of offenses, which we'll get to in a second. however, even before capital punishment was instituted, the idea that the blood of the slain cried unto God was taught in Genesis 4:10-11 (Cain and Able). Capital punishment was instituted five chapters later in Genesis 9:5-6, which reads:


 * And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Clearly God is concerned with how we leave this world, and how we come into this world.

Exodus 22 discusses the idea of blood being shed for sins, but this again, is not blood atonement, this is punishment. The Jews and the Muslims believed in shedding blood to provide restitution for sins such as thievery, murder, etc. But this is restitution for sin, not atoning for sins with blood. This scripture states:


 * If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution;

This idea is put forth in bunch of old testament passages.

In leviticus 20, we have a number of passages taht talk about blood being upon (or covering; ie restituion) the sins of the perpertrator. Captital offenses in these passages seem to be different than the capital offenses of other passages such as number 35. Captital offenses here include: cursing parents, adultry with father's wife, incest, homosexuality, bestiality and psychic work. In numbers 35, we have approved retribution for murder ("The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him." and "And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood")

Now for the idea of blood atonement, also in number 35, we read: "blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it."

In the new testament, we have John's wonderful discourse on water, blood and spirit (john 5), which is expanded upon by Moses (For by the awater ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are bjustified, and by the cblood ye are dsanctified; moses 6:59-62). In these passages, it teaches that blood can save us - typically, we believe that the blood of christ saves us. it pays restitution for our sins that we cannot ourselves. But that idea was tuaght by moses in leviticus as well:


 * For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

In the book of mormon the idea is taken just a bit farther. Those who know better or who have entered into covenants with God. for them the blood of christ would not atone for their shedding of the blood of their brethren, as it once had, as they had entered into the covenant, accepting the atonement:


 * Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren. Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords aagain they can no more be bwashed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins. Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us ahide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us bclean thereby. And now it came to pass that when the king had made an end of these sayings, and all the people were assembled together, they took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man’s blood, and they did abury them up deep in the earth. And this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they anever would use weapons again for the shedding of man’s blood; and this they did, vouching and bcovenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would cgive up their own lives; and rather than take away from a brother they would give unto him; and rather than spend their days in idleness they would labor abundantly with their hands. (Alma 24: 12-13, 15, 17-18)

See once again, i need to emphasize that once they had accepted the atonement, they were fearful to shed non-innocent blood as they thought that sin would no longer "be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God" This idea is again taught in Mosiah 11:


 * For behold, and also his ablood batoneth for the sins of those who have cfallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the dwill of God concerning them, or who have eignorantly sinned.

But does it cover those who knowingly sin? Yes, the atonement does. But D&C 132: 19, 26-27 states that in cases of murder by those who have entered into the new and everlasting covenant, (as Young taught), the atonement cannot work. That is where blood atonement comes into play.

Alma further teaches:


 * Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is ajust, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the alife of him who hath bmurdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. (Alma 32:11-12)

Again, please note, that this applies to the laws of the gospel (ie those who accept the gospel) not those who are outside of teh gospel (capital punishment)

Now as far as Smith's statement of his own blood flowing, a contemporary of his wrote: "their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the aaltar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen." Again, this is avenging, not atoning.

So we have punishment, retribution and vengeance on one hand of those who commit murder, and on the other hand we have self-atonement, repentance and restitution. I think you are confusing these two concepts. -Visorstuff 23:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Visorstuff has written above. I think there has been or continues to be some confusion over the two separate issues. They should be differentiated and kept separate in WP articles -SESmith 23:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the current caption with the photo. It does help to differenciate between the various confusing doctrines in this area.  Its also a great picture of Smith.  It really adds to the article.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the analysis of Visorstuff, although I would classify the statement in Numbers 35, "blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it", as still relating to retribution, not blood atonement. This is the same as Joseph Smith's "blood for blood" doctrine, where spilled blood requires punishment by bloodshed as a matter of retribution. The idea is that when someone is killed, there is an imbalance in the universe that can only be balanced by the retributive spilling of more blood. It doesn't say that the spilling of the murderer's blood puts the murder right with God, only that God's retribution is satisfied by spilling the murderer's blood. The murder, of course, could still go to hell as far as God is concerned. It's a subtle distinction, I think, that has led many to assume that Joseph Smith taught the blood atonement doctrine, which he didn't as far as anybody knows. CO GDEN  17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Smith's teachings about the concept of blood atonement
I also like the neutral presentation of Smith's statements. The editing style of this group of editors is vastly improving and becoming more neutral. I really like the re-wording and presentation of those materials. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I almost gave the article an "A". The Original research takes the grade back to "F" for neutrality.  No more original research please. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, how does using someone elses research constitute original research? I simply noted that the term and concept exist outside of Mormonism. And not including makes this article all about Mormonism, which is not neutral if others use the term. what is not neutral about it? It is like an article on repentance and only presenting the Mormon view of it. -Visorstuff 04:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Blood atonement out side of mormonism
I did a quick search earlier today for Blood atonement eliminating Mormonism from the search, and came up with over a million christian, Jewish and Islamic sources that discuss the term "blood atonement" and define it as I did in the article's new lead paragraph. I noticed that Merkey deleted the section, calling it original research, however, if someone else uses and defines the term as cited, it is not WP:OR]]. I admit that the Non-LDS section of this article should be expanded, and even the LDS section forked off into its own article such as Blood atonement (Mormonism) or Blood atonement (Latter Day Saint), but to delete the section because it doesn't deal with mormonism is not wise. Not only is the term prevalent, but it was used historically and even books were written on the topic. The section should stay or the article loses credibility with the greater religious community. -Visorstuff 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also doing some research on what others have written on the topic outside of Mormonism, and I'll add in sections on each of the three major abrahamic religions that discuss the term. For now, the sections will be left blank, but we'll fill in the sections in the next couple of days. any assistance on this would be appreciated - there is a world of wealth on the topic. -Visorstuff 05:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, someone who is better at formatting an article than I, the headers are in a strange style - help would be appreciated as I don't have much time to work on this tonight. -Visorstuff 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need separate sections on non-Mormon blood atonement. In Judaism and Christianity, "blood atonement" is a rare way to refer to animal sacrifice (Korban), but the far more common term is animal sacrifice. This can be dealt with in a hatnote, rather than a separate section. The only concept of "blood atonement" unique to traditional Christianity is the Atonement, a far more common term that can also be referred to in a hatnote. I don't think there is a distinct usage of the term "blood atonement" in Islam, apart from referring to the animal sacrifices of the Bible. CO GDEN  17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll make the change based on your thoughts. one quick disamig paragraph and image up front, then right into Mormonism. Perhaps a better image would be one of Jesus, rather than a lamb, as it deals with sins the atonement doesn't cover? -Visorstuff 19:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the hatnote, but wonder if we should discuss the doctrine of atoning blood somewhere in the article. the reader is left to ask themselves, "why is blood needed in atonements?" This was the context I think is missing by deleting the comparison to the greater blood atonement doctrines of judaism and christianity. I think this is something most within mormonism don't quite understand the idea of being cleansed, jsutified and sanctified of blood water and the spirit. Blood - more specifically, spilt blood causes the change just as much as water for baptism. the three are so intermingled in doctrines - from the ordinance of birth to the law of sacrifice to the doctrine of work to the ordinance of the atonement, to death (holland and maxwell called these sacraments), that we often overlook the neccessity of blood, water and spirit. Cogden, do you think a discussion of this somewhere in the doctrinal basis section would make sense? TPJS would be the starting point, followed by Gospel Doctrine and Answers to Gospel Questions. Even the Messiah series and Talmage's JTC would be good background here. -Visorstuff 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that would fit very well right at the beginning of the background section, immediately after the intro where the picture of Christ is. Maybe a brief explanation in the intro, as well, if possible, but I'm not sure how easy it is to summarize this in just a sentence or two. CO GDEN  22:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of forgiveness doctrine for murder

 * Hi all, I'm obviously new here. I'm not well-read enough to become a major contributor to this article, but I do see one overarching misrepresentation of LDS doctrine. This is in regards to D&C 132:19 and 26, which states there is no forgiveness for murder and is oft-quoted alongside the claim that it creates a discrepancy with other scriptures that state that all men may be forgiven of all sins thanks to an infinite atonement (Alma 34:11-13 and D&C 18:11-12). Here I will quote verbatim from D&C 76:34-39:

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.

The murder spoken of in Section 132 is thus the murder of Jesus Christ -- those who "have knowledge" and willingly fight him are akin to accomplices in the crucifixion. This is the same as denying the Holy Spirit and is not for those who murder an innocent life other than Jesus. As far as official statements, I don't know of any offhand, though I'm sure I would be able to find something given the time. In fact, the footnotes of the two scriptures even cross-reference each other.

Alma states very clearly that the atonement is infinite and eternal. Due to the language of some of the quotes by Young and Taylor that read along the lines of "we believe the atonement will not work for some sins," I always had the understanding that these are simply referring to the fact that it won't be applied to the sinner in this life. The "atonement" process isn't in the execution, which, no matter the method, would be relatively painless compared to the infinite and eternal atonement Jesus suffered. This would actually be quite a loophole to exaltation due to the speed and ease of getting murdered. Rather, the atonement mentioned by Young and Taylor is the suffering that will take place in Spirit Prison before the resurrection. Perhaps after suffering through the millennium (such as those who refuse the atonement and inherit the telestial kingdom - D&C 19:16-18) the atonement will then take full effect and redeem the sinner, though this last bit is my speculation only and the time period could be less if the sinner is penitent. It's not clear to me whether this was fully explained by Brigham Young in the record we have, but this is the only answer that fits with other known doctrine without creating both a discrepancy and a ridiculously easy way out of experiencing Godly sorrow in spirit prison.

I will leave it up to you scholars to do with this what you will, and will let you edit as you see fit. However I do think it is important to represent the doctrine of forgiveness and murder accurately, based on canonized scripture: that all sins and murder are forgivable, aside from denying the Holy Spirit / murder of Jesus Christ.

Papaskunk 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Blood Atonement for Mixing the Seed
The Mormon Church teaches that marrying someone of another race is a violation of God's laws and the blood of Jesus Christ does not extend to mixed race people who are a product of "mixing the seed". Biracial babies are "sacrificed" as part of blood atonement by the Mormon Church. Biracial converts are tought to offer themselves willingly as a blood atonement likewise. Mormon doctors are covertly performing abortions which are then labeled as miscarriages and "sacrificing" biracial babies of unbeknowing non-mormons and performing unessesary c-sections of women belonging to biracial marriages so they can covertly be given a tubal ligation preventing further pregnancies which they believe to be a "foul offence to God". Although young white Mormon missionaries go to great extreams making converts in foriene counties none return to America with a wife of another race. 777LOVE (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 777LOVE, thanks for bringing this to the discussion page. It looks like you are new to Wikipedia.  Are you familiar with Wikipedia policies about verifiability and using reliable sources?  The material you have tried to add to the article, which you quoted above, is (to put it mildly) very far from the truth as I know it, so I have to wonder where it's coming from.  Can you tell us where this information is published? alanyst /talk/ 21:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is a total mess
There's no clear organization and a lot of the material is repetitive, uses Mormon-specific jargon, and there isn't any organizational structure. I'd like to propose a drastic overhaul, with sections clearly dividing the topic into History, Doctrine, Practice, and Controversy. The stuff written above about biracial blood atonment and no intermarriage is a good example of how much misinformation there is out there. MiriamKnight (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Miriam KnightMiriamKnight (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A total mess? Let's be honest, this is complete bullshit.
Here is a second that this page as a total mess. There is ZERO neutrality as the author knows very well. For example, there is no shred of even remotely reliable historical evidence that the so called "Danites" ever existed. There is no conclusive proof to show that the doctrine of "blood atonement" and alleged in the context of this article, was ever taught by mainstream LDS leaders. The few statements that are backed up by citations are taken from partial quotes and the statements are taken wholly out of context -- apparently deliberately so. Most all citations are taken from known anti-mormon literature which are far from neutral and wholly rejected by the scholarly LDS studies community. Most so called "quotes" and "citations" and "evidence" taken are fourth level heresay writings from individuals who were in known opposition to the LDS church at the time. If I tell you something, then that person tells another person, then that person tells another person, then that person tells someone who is in KNOWN opposition to person who originally stated the message and then writes it down in a journal, how reliable do you think this source is? I hold two (2) doctorate degrees and can say with certainty that there is not a shred of historical truth found on this page. This is nothing more than anti-mormon rhetoric and has zero scholarly significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.96.73.187 (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the sources, since that's what the foundation of a good Wikipedia article should be. Which sources used by this article do you feel are not reliable or are being misused, and are there any sources not cited that you think should be?  (I recommend reading the policy on reliable sources if you haven't already, to see how Wikipedia editors should evaluate sources for reliability.) alanyst /talk/ 18:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would start with the premise of the whole article for starters. Mormonism, like many religions, is a very controversial subject, but perhaps is more so with Mormonism. Maybe we should require that all of the articles on wikipedia regarding blacks be written by white supremacist groups? This entire article, like so many on Mormonism, needs to be scrapped and its premise rewritten from an objective viewpoint -- i.e., a collaborative effort from by and between the leaders of the LDS Church and reputable scholars of LDS studies at major universities. I would recommend contacting both the editors of Dialogue -- which is widely commentated in the scholarly community as being the only unbiased and neutral source of LDS scholarship -- and the present leaders of the LDS faith. Without such a collaborative effort, this is exactly what you can expect on this subject -- i.e., one side painting the LDS as angels and the other painting them as demons -- as is true in this, uh, so called "article."

I can't even begin to list all of the problems with this so called "work." For starters lets take the following section:

"A number of modern authors refer to "blood atonement," usually in association with "Danites." These references often appear in works critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and rumors of "Danites" practicing some form of "blood atonement" often play a significant role in these accounts."

We are really going to publish something based on rumors? Well, I am an educated man that holds two (2) doctorate degrees. Maybe I should just start a rumor that the President JFK was a member of a secret, heretofore unknown sect of vatican assassins called the Holy Apples of the Purple Cross, hence the Cuban Missle Crises and the Bay of Pigs. What is that you say? That would be "fictional" and have no place on wikipedia? There is equally zero (and I do mean zero) evidence that the so called "Danites" ever existed. So why are there numerous pages on wikipedia discussing the "Danites?"

"In her book Leaving the Saints, Martha Beck postulates the existence of a "Danite" band "disposing" of people who opposed Brigham Young:"

Which people were these? Where? I claim that members of the Holy Apples of the Purple Cross liked to watch movies in a secret cave under St. Peter's Basillica.

"Brigham Young formalized and anointed these assassins as the Danites, whose mission included espionage, suppression of information, and quietly, permanently disposing of people who threatened the Mormon prophet or the Latter-day Saint organization. Again, not many Mormons know this detail of Church history, but every now and then, Utah papers record murders with uniquely Mormon flavoring (death by temple-sanctioned methods, for example), and the word that goes out on the Latter-day grapevine is Danite.[82]"

O.K. Martha Beck was openly hostile to the LDS church at the time this was written. There has been no evidence to back up any claim that the Danites ever existed. Both LDS and non-LDS historians alike have attempted to reserach this claim and have found no evidence that any such group ever existed. To use a hypothetical, I am wholly against vegetarians. If I wrote a book of hateful rhetoric saying that all PETA members slept with animals, does that mean I should be allowed to publish my clear offensive and fictional statements in wikipedia as a reliable source? Does that mean I should be able to spout my hateful and offensive rhetoric on not one, but numerous pages on wikipedia? I think not.

"Sally Denton, in her book American Massacre, claims that the Danites and "blood atonement" had a prominent role in 19th century Utah society."

If they had such a prominent role, then why has no American historian who is not a salivating member of the anti-mormon movement ever heard of them? Why can we find no evidence of their existence? Yes, a prominent group indeed.

"Denton attributes the creation of the Danites to Joseph Smith as his “secret group of loyalists” and suggests that they became “one of the most legendarily feared bands in frontier America.”

Yes, and I attribute JFK's membership to the vatican league of purple cross assassins to Pope Bendict and his conversations with aliens from another planet. Total and complete FICTION!

"According to Denton, this “consecrated, clandestine unit of divinely inspired assassins” introduced “the ritualized form of murder called blood atonement-providing the victim with eternal salvation by slitting his throat.”[83]"

Yes, the members of the purple cross assassins were taught to kill people by modern warfare. After all, enemies of the Vicar of Christ should have their souls blown to smitheriens. Sounds good to me.

"Denton claims that “blood atonement” was one of the doctrines which Mormons held “most sacred”"

Really, beacaue no Mormon I have ever met even knows what "blood atonement" is -- and I know A LOT OF MORMONS including prominent leaders of the faith.

"and that “[t]hose who dared to flee Zion were hunted down and killed.”[84]"

Whoa, wait a minute. If you are going to accuse a group of relious people of murder over the internet, then you had better have some proof. Wait, there is none. No reputable American historian even entertains the possibility of the existence of so called "Danites." (And, no, Sandra Tanner is not considered a reputable, non-baised historian.)

"Denton implies that large numbers of such “atonements” occurred during the Mormon reformation of 1856, although “none of the crimes were ever reported in the Deseret News,""

Exactly, where were all of these murders? Where were the victims? Where were the grieving families. This is all anti-mormon rhetoric.

"and that the “bloody regime...ended with [Jedediah] Grant’s sudden death, on December 1, 1856.”[85]""

Yes, a bloody regime so bloody that not even a single death was reported. Seriously, if the author of this article can report on the so called Danites, then surely I should be able to report my "rumors" as to the leauge of the holy apples of the purple cross and JFKs clear involvement in such a scandalous, unscrupulous, un-Chirstian, murderous and bloodthirsty gang. Earth to wikipedia, this is NOT scholarship! This is anti-mormon hate that has contributed to the persecution of a world-wide religion for centuries. Have enough sense and responsibility to recognize that you cannot just let anyone post articles on Mormonism. IT IS FAR TOO CONTROVERSIAL OF A TOPIC. Go to an objective, non-baised source or, better, look to create a collaboration between reputable sources.

Just FYI and we can continue this discussion later, but this is how the ENTIRE article reads to anyone that has even a basic understanding of American history, let alone LDS history. The Mormon faith is a very controversial faith and has MANY enemies. I would propose to Wikipedia that this articles and other articles on Mormonism be rewritten through a combined and collaborative effort between the leaders of the LDS Church and reputable non-LDS scholars of LDS studies at major universities. Otherwise this is the result you will get -- i.e., one side painting the LDS as angels and the other as demons, the latter which this article does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.96.73.187 (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

the sources for this article are completely biased to begin with
Just because we have footnotes does not mean that they are credible. In some recent research, an article was written by F.A.I.R. that gives statements by Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball and other Church leaders at the time clearly teaching against these doctrines and rumors. There are a lot of other great works that could be cited, but only one side is given a story. The fact that there is no evidence that any of this ever actually took place in the Church Leadership is not mentioned at all, and it should be there at the very outset. None of this is fact, but it goes on and on like it was. http://www.fairlds.org/ --this is a link to that article, written feb 2011. This article should start out with something like: Blood atonement refers to doctrines attributed to LDS Church leaders of the mid 19th Century by anti-mormons in efforts to defame the Mormons, though there is no proof of such practices having ever been taught or carried out.

Brigham Young teaches against blood atonement directly in the Journal of Discourses in Volume 11 (p 262), vol 2 (30, 32), and others. It is also preached against by Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Heber Kimball, and others accused of teaching it. All of the literature that promotes a mormon sponsoring of blood atonement is anti-mormon, and so most of these statements are completely biased in every imaginable way. They are all completely out of context. This is akin--quite literally, to letting the nazis write the article on judaism.

Read the article, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.72.110 (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias opinions written about the Mormon faith.
This subject matter is not only a bias opinion on the Mormon faith, the texts quoted are taken out of context. Most aren't even accurately quoted. The Blood Atonement is not a belief in the Mormon faith. That is, not in any other context other than that the Blood Atonement that those of the Mormon, or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, believe in is the same belief that other faiths within Christianity have. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes that all will be saved through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, both on the cross and in the sacred garden of Gethsemane.

Please note that this is not only factual within the Mormon faith, but that this article is bias and incorrect and in being so should be removed.

Daddychainmail (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be missing is that this page isn't about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You are correct that Blood atonement isn't part of the LDS Church's doctrine anymore, but is is still doctrine within the Mormonism movement as a whole.  There are hundreds of Mormon sects many of which believe in Blood atonement.  For example, Church of the Lamb of God and Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Your claim that "this is not only factual within the Mormon faith" is only correct, if you exclude all other Mormon sects.  To remove this page based on the idea that since the LDS Church doesn't believe it, then it isn't part of Mormonism, is both ignoring the fact that the LDS Church isn't the only "Mormon" sect, and this it was historically taught by Brigham Young.
 * However, you claim that "..the texts quoted are taken out of context. Most aren't even accurately quoted.]] Please give examples.  If a quote isn't accurate it should be corrected.
 * --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

D&C for Doctrine and Covenants
I notice that the abbreviation "D&C" for the Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS scriptural canon is not explicitly explained in the text. I suggest inserting either "D&C" or "D&C 132" after the first reference to "Doctrine and Covenants 132" in the second ¶ of the Historical and doctrinal background section. All of the references to the Doctrine and Covenants in the text are to D&C 132, although there is one reference to D&C 42:18 in the Notes. I've also made "Doctrine and Covenants" an internal link since there is a now Wikipedia entry on the subject. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Blood atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120311075052/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews6,21818 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews6,21818
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070808055434/http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org:80/EstZion/zionch11.htm to http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/EstZion/zionch11.htm#chapter11
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927051038/http://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFSRC/11.4Jessee.pdf to https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/11.4Jessee.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070611155711/http://www.fairlds.org:80/Misc/Did_Brigham_Young_Say_He_Would_Kill_an_Adulterous_Wife_with_a_Javelin.html to http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_Brigham_Young_Say_He_Would_Kill_an_Adulterous_Wife_with_a_Javelin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Blood atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901030738/http://phoenixnewtimes.com:80/Issues/2005-11-10/news/feature.html to http://phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2005-11-10/news/feature.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124153913/http://www.mrm.org:80/topics/salvation/blood-atonement-if-it-was-never-taught-why-do-so-many-mormons-believe-it to http://www.mrm.org/topics/salvation/blood-atonement-if-it-was-never-taught-why-do-so-many-mormons-believe-it

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Speculation about Lillian Chynoweth
I removed the following from the paragraph about Lillian Chynoweth's interview:
 * While in the The God Makers II, Lillian LeBaron Chynoweth refers to the "Mormon Church" as being responsible for the killings, the film does not specifically state that the "Mormon Church" referred to by Chynoweth is actually the "Church of the Lamb of God," which may suggest that she associated these activities of the Church of the Lamb of God with those of the LDS Church, informally known as the Mormon Church, at large. The film also makes no mention the suicide and instead implies that Chynoweth was killed.

The first sentence seems like unsourced speculation on her thought processes. I also don't see how it's relevant to the article what the film might imply.Lusanaherandraton (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blood atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C197295
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0ZoRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ie0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6285%2C4469368&dq=ronnie-lee-gardner&hl=en
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2005-11-10/news/feature.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121215103706/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews1,175293 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews1%2C175293
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mrm.org/topics/salvation/blood-atonement-if-it-was-never-taught-why-do-so-many-mormons-believe-it
 * Added tag to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C156707
 * Added tag to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews1%2C3298
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C150800
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021617/http://www.mormonwiki.org/Unforgivable_sin_and_blood_atonement to http://www.mormonwiki.org/Unforgivable_sin_and_blood_atonement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blood atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907003218/http://www.childbrides.org/texas_YFZ_Blood_Atonement.html to http://www.childbrides.org/texas_YFZ_Blood_Atonement.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164224/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C14730 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C14730
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164239/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C4312 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C4312

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"in spite of evidence to the contrary" - please source
I noticed this phrase in the partway through a paragraph, but neither source at the end of that sentence discuss this evidence - merely state the official response from TCoJCoLDS.

While I do not wish to dismiss this entirely, could it please have a cited source? OldMateFromAus (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)