Blood Atonement - Historical and Doctrinal Background

Historical and Doctrinal Background

Mormonism was in its early days a Restorationist faith, and leaders such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young frequently discussed efforts to re-introduce social, legal, and religious practices described in the Bible, such as temple building, polygamy, and a patriarchal, theocratic governing structure. The term "blood atonement" does not appear in Mormon scripture. However, in the Book of Mormon there are verses clearly detailing that "the law of Moses" requires capital punishment for the crime of murder.

The concept of blood atonement for adultery was less clearly articulated in LDS scripture. In Doctrine and Covenants 132, Joseph Smith wrote that people who break the "New and Everlasting Covenant" (Celestial marriage) would be "destroyed in the flesh" and be punished until they received their exaltation at the Last Judgment.

The requirement of bloodshed for capital crimes grew into the idea that salvation would be blocked unless this penalty was adhered to, as the "law" would remain "unfulfilled." The belief of the necessity of spilled blood and death to make restitution for adultery and murder was aided by a generally favorable view toward capital punishment, the idea that spilled blood "cries out" for retribution, the "blood for blood" doctrine that says crimes of bloodshed should be punished by the spilling of blood, and the concept that repentance requires restitution. Although the scriptures in Alma 34 of the Book of Mormon speak of the "requirement" in terms of a legal obligation, Brigham Young described blood atonement-worthy crimes as actually negating the salvation offered by Jesus, stating that a sinner's crimes "will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires."