Blood atonement

Blood atonement was a practice in the history of Mormonism still adhered to by some fundamentalist splinter groups, under which the atonement of Jesus does not redeem an eternal sin. To atone for an eternal sin, the sinner should be killed in a way that allows his blood to be shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering, so he does not become a son of perdition. The largest Mormon denomination, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), has denied the validity of the doctrine since 1889 with early church leaders referring to it as a "fiction" and later church leaders referring to it as a "theoretical principle" that had never been implemented in the LDS Church.^[2][3]

The doctrine arose among early Mormon leaders and it was significantly promoted during the Mormon Reformation, when Brigham Young governed the Utah Territory as a near-theocracy. According to Young and other members of his First Presidency, eternal sins that needed blood atonements included apostasy, theft and fornication (sodomy and adultery were two sins that did not need blood atonements).^[4]

Young taught that sinners should voluntarily choose to practice the doctrine but he also taught that it should only be enforced by a complete theocracy (a form of government which has not existed in modern times).^[5] Young considered it more charitable to sacrifice a life than to see them endure eternal torment in the afterlife. In Young's view, in a full Mormon theocracy, the practice would be implemented by the state as a penal measure.

The blood atonement doctrine was the impetus behind laws that allowed capital punishment to be administered by firing squad or decapitation in both the territory and the state of Utah.^{[citation needed][6]} Though people in Utah were executed by firing squad for capital crimes under the assumption that this would aid their salvation, there is no clear evidence that Young or other top theocratic Mormon leaders enforced blood atonement for apostasy.^[7] There is some evidence that the doctrine was enforced a few times at the local church level without regard to secular judicial procedure.^[8] The rhetoric of blood atonement may have contributed to a culture of violence leading to the Mountain Meadows massacre.^[9]

Blood atonement remains an important doctrine within Mormon fundamentalism^[10] and is often referenced by alt-right Mormon groups (such as the DezNat community online).^[11] Nonetheless, the LDS Church has formally repudiated the doctrine multiple times since the days of Young. LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie, speaking on behalf of church leadership, wrote in 1978 that while he still believed that certain sins are beyond the atoning power of the blood of Christ, the doctrine of blood atonement is only applicable in a theocracy, like that during the time of Moses.^[3] Nevertheless, given its long history, up until at least 1994 potential jurors in Utah have been questioned on their beliefs concerning the blood atonement prior to trials where the death penalty may be considered.^[12]