Select Page

trialbloodatonement ( ** )

Blood atonement— Section 51

The Mormon doctrine of ‘blood atonement’ is not Biblical

Representative of a Christian church:
I believe it is the doctrine of the LDS Church that Christ’s blood is of no effect to some sinners, and thus the Mormons have come up with a questionable doctrine of ‘blood atonement’.  It appears you have taken this doctrine directly from the Law of Moses, and you teach and support ‘capital punishment’.  You teach that a murderer must ‘offer his blood’ to atone for his sin if he has taken another person’s life.  I challenge you to show us anywhere that this ‘doctrine’ is taught in the teachings of Christ.  I find it to be a man-made and false doctrine.  What I am pointing out is that if a Mormon were to kill another person, that person must atone for that sin with his own blood.  I challenge you to show us this doctrine anywhere in the New Testament.

Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
The doctrine of blood atonement was taught and practiced in the days of Moses because the civil and ecclesiastical laws were administered by the same people and the same organization.  Noah, who had the “everlasting covenant” with God, and who had a fulness of the gospel, was commanded, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.”  (Genesis 9:6)  Paul taught in Romans 1:26-32 that murder and many forms of sexual sin “are worthy of death”.  Hebrews 5:9 tells us that Christ was the author of eternal salvation unto “all them that obey him” and yet when we “sin wilfully after we have received a knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”  (Hebrews 10:26)  A sin of murder is a direct contradiction to the will of God and maes it necessary that we have a personal “atonement” for these things.  If it were not necessary, the Lord would not have commanded it to Noah, who did not live under the law of Moses.

Representative of a Christian church:
But Christ did not ever teach that doctrine.  When they brought sinners before him, he would either forgive them (the thief on the cross) or send them on their way with the command to repent (as the woman caught in adultery).  I still feel strongly that Christ did not ever teach this ‘doctrine’.

Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
You challenged us to present scriptural support for our belief.  We feel that we have done that.  The issue here, however, is whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.  If he was, as we have demonstrated here today, then it was doctrine of the Lord.  We have proven from the scriptures that God commanded it, that it was practiced and taught, and we showed where Paul made reference to it.  If God were to command or revoke it through a prophet, we would accept it.  Christ may have forgiven sinners, but we still have the words of Paul to the Galatians ringing in our ears, “…they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”  (Galatians 5:19-21)   Each individual has his different circumstances for committing sin, and it appears to us that a personal atonement for a grievous sin would be an act of humble repentance and a request for mercy from our Redeemer.  An adulterous person is not only a morally wicked person in body, but in spirit.  The doctrine was taught by prophets of God, and we have supported them from the scriptures.

Click here to return to the Trial
Click here to return to the Challenging Questions index
Click here to return to the Main Menu page