Saints Mormon Reformation Part 5

Viewpoint on Mormonism, the program that examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a Biblical perspective. Viewpoint on Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism Research Ministry. Since 1979, Mormonism Research Ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now your host for today's Viewpoint on Mormonism. Modern Mormon leaders refuted what Brigham Young and others taught about the doctrine of blood atonement. Welcome to this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism.

I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry, and with me today is Eric Johnson, my colleague at MRM. This week we've been talking about the Mormon Reformation that is mentioned in chapter 17 of the book Saints, No Unhallowed Hand. No Unhallowed Hand is volume two of four volumes, two of which have not been released as of this date, that talk about the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This book tends to cover the dates 1846 to 1893, and it was published in the year 2020. We've been looking at the doctrine of blood atonement since it is mentioned in this book. We've been looking at page 245, which specifically talks about how Brigham Young and others had drawn on Old Testament scriptures to teach that certain grievous sins could be forgiven only through the shedding of the sinner's blood. In yesterday's show, we read some of the statements that Brigham Young, as well as Jedediah M. Grant, who was mentioned specifically in this book as being one of those who kind of pushed this idea of what they call a moral reformation. And we don't get any impression from those citations that we gave that Brigham Young really did not intend for people to be put to death for their sins, as this book says on page 246.

The question that I asked at the beginning of the show is what have modern Mormon leaders said about this? Well, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was the 10th president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, talks about the doctrine of blood atonement in volume one of his book, Doctrines of Salvation. On page 133, he tends to offer a refutation to some of the ugly things that he thinks people have said about this doctrine, and the only reason why he doesn't agree with them is because he is saying that those things that the Church was being accused of believing really weren't taught in the first place. On page 133, he says this, under the heading, True Doctrine of Blood Atonement. Just a word or two now on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine?

Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this. Through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold.

General, that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief in this life in Christ, and individual, that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Naturally, as a New Testament Christian, I would find problems with his explanation of salvation being twofold, general and individual, and of course within the context of Mormonism, general salvation is the resurrection from the dead, that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief in this life in Christ. And Smith goes on to say there's also an individual salvation, that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

That, of course, in the context of Mormonism, would be what is known as exaltation, or becoming a god in the next life. But on page 134, right after the paragraph that I just read, Joseph Fielding Smith goes on to say this. Now, Eric, doesn't that sound very similar to what Jedediah M. Grant and Brigham Young were teaching in the 19th century?

It sounds very close to what they were saying. And so when he's trying to refute these ugly rumors that have been said about what Brigham Young and others taught on this subject, he seems to be confirming that what they're saying is true. Especially the last part where he says, for the blood of Christ alone, under certain circumstances, will not avail.

Now, we know what some of those circumstances are with Brigham Young. We read some of those yesterday when it comes to adultery or stealing or marrying somebody with black skin. So the question then becomes, if there is no forgiveness of sins under certain circumstances, then how do you get the atonement? It seems that what they're doing, they're equating capital punishment with atonement for a sinner's sins. Remember, capital punishment really has nothing to do with atonement. It's punishment for what an individual has done in this life, and there's really no specific mention that somehow this is going to atone for your sins. In other words, we would think that that individual who dies by capital punishment automatically gets into the celestial kingdom. That would make no sense at all, even within the context of Mormonism.

But, I will agree, it sure sounds confusing. Well, in the book Saints, it makes the statement, and we've been dealing with this for the past couple of shows, that Brigham and others had even drawn on Old Testament Scriptures to teach that certain grievous sins could be forgiven only through the shedding of the sinner's blood. My complaint was that it does not tell you what those verses are in the Old Testament that Brigham Young might have been using, even though it has an endnote number 15.

The endnote number 15 does not give you the answer, but guess what, folks? Joseph Fielding Smith does, on page 135 of Volume 1 in Doctrines of Salvation. This is what Joseph Fielding Smith said regarding ancient men slain to atone for sins.

He asked this question, Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? Nehor is mentioned in Alma 1.15, which of course is in the Book of Mormon. I was almost hoping that the Book of Mormon did specifically say that Nehor atoned for his sins by his punishment by death, but it doesn't do that. That would have been a clear example showing that the Book of Mormon definitely contradicts what the Bible has to say, but basically the story of Nehor is not all that unusual. Alma 1.15 says, He suffered an ignominious death. He confesses his sins before he's executed. But did you read anywhere in that passage, and that's the verse that he gives as a footnote here, Alma 1.15, do you read anywhere where Nehor atoned for his sins as a result of that death penalty that he received? No, you have to read something into the passage, which is interesting because Mormons are pretty notorious for eisegesing biblical passages.

Here we have a case of eisegesis being done to a Book of Mormon passage. It doesn't say what Joseph Fielding Smith is implying. Joseph Fielding Smith goes on after that example to say, And it says, Now it's interesting, Bill, because he was hanged. He wasn't even having his blood shed. Even in Utah, we had capital punishment.

We haven't had a case in many years. What's interesting about that statement, though, Eric, is that seems to go against what Joseph Smith taught. And remember, we cited this also from the History of the Church Volume 5, page 296, where Joseph Smith said, But again, what you read, I don't hear anything about them atoning for their sins in that case.

It's just that it's a case of capital punishment. But then he gives some examples from the Old Testament. And remember, that's what the book says on page 245. The book Saints says that Brigham and others drew from the Old Testament scriptures the idea that sins could be forgiven only through the shedding of a sinner's blood. Joseph Fielding Smith, in his book, in Volume 1, page 135 of Doctrines of Salvation, mentions Er and Onan, and that's found in Genesis 38, 7, and 10. It says, But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the Lord's sight, so the Lord put him to death. And then verse 10 says, What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight, so the Lord put him to death also. So we have Er and Onan being put to death, but no mention of them atoning for the sins that they had committed. Then Smith goes on to mention, So fire came out from the presence of the Lord, and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Where do you read anywhere in that short passage? And that's the reference that Smith gives on page 135. Where do you read in Leviticus 10 to that Nadab and Abihu atoned for their sins?

All we read here is that their death was a result of capital punishment. And then one last reference that Joseph Fielding Smith gives on page 135 of Volume 1, and the death of Achan, which is found, according to his footnote, Joshua 7, 24, and 25. Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold bar, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent, and all that he had to the valley of Achor. Joshua said, Why have you brought this trouble on us? The Lord will bring trouble on you today. Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them.

Where is the reference of any type of atonement for Achan's sin? We don't read anything like that in the Old Testament. So when this book implies that Brigham and others had drawn on Old Testament scriptures to teach that certain grievous sins could be forgiven only through the shedding of the sinner's blood, that statement cannot be true. We've looked at some of the verses that were given by Joseph Fielding Smith. Not one single reference that he gives supports what it says on page 245 of Saints No Unhallowed Hand. We encourage you to visit our website at www.mrm.org where you can request our free newsletter, Mormonism Researched. We hope you will join us again as we look at another viewpoint on Mormonism.