Mormon Blood Sacrifice connected to Mountain Meadows Massacre

Brigham Young advocated in multiple sermons that people should be killed for committing certain sins, because Christ’s sacrifice was not enough to cover for these sins. This is also known as the mormon law of Blood Attonment. The sins that the mormon leader considered to fall under Blood Atonement even included black interracial marriages, and apostasy from the mormon church. There seems to be a direct link between Brigham Young’s sermons, which are recorded in LDS scripture, and the murder of over 100 innocent people by mormons and their church leaders, in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

As pointed out in other articles, the Journal of Discourses has been considered scripture for many years, and though they try to distance them selves from it mormon leaders still categorize it as scripture. Even if you don’t want to trust the Journal of Discourses, the same sermon from Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses about “blood atonement” was also printed in the Deseret News. Deseret News was the official church publication of the day, that went out to all the local saints in the Utah area. And an even stronger link between Brigham Young’s words about blood atonement and the Mountain Meadows massacre is that the dates line up perfectly. They happen in the same year!!! The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened September 11th, 1857 (yes this was the first 9-11), and Brigham Young’s sermon on Blood Atonement was given earlier in the same year, on Feb. 8th 1857.

Here are several paragraphs directly from the sermon, that was just months before the Mountain Meadows Massacre:

“Now take a person in this congregation … and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?”

All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?

I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil … I have known a great many men who left this church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them, the wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbids this principle’s being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.”

(Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, Feb. 8, 1857, printed in the Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 219-20)

Even if the saints in Utah didn’t hear it directly from Brigham Young’s lips in the tabernacle, they would have had the chance to get the sermon in the Deseret News and read and ponder it for a few months before the Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred. Doesn’t the sequence of events make so much sense? It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say Brigham Young’s words seem to have had a direct influence on the Mountain Meadows Massacre!

By the way, if you want to look up the 122 different modern LDS General Conference talks that quote from Journal of Discourses, here is a link:
http://lds.org/search?query=%22journal+of+discourses%22&lang=eng&collection=general-conference

Some of the talks quote from Journal of Discourses multiple times. The first talk listed quotes from Journal of Discourses 8 separate times, different quotes! If it wasn’t a valid source for Brigham Young’s word, then LDS General Authorities wouldn’t be quoting from it. But again, the local Mormons in Utah who participated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre probably heard it during General Conference in the tabernacle, or from Deseret News.

Can you see how the Mountain Meadows Massacre seems to be a direct result of Brigham Young’s doctrine of Blood Atonement?

The LDS Church says their prophet will never guide you astray. In the Bible, Jesus says many false prophets will come, and that we should judge them by their fruits. Jesus says if a tree has bad fruits, the whole tree is bad (see Mathew 7:20-27). Joseph Smith has plenty of bad fruits, such as his lies about his own adulteries, to which the LDS church has recently acknowledged, but had hidden for many years.

All these facts can be verified via the inline links above.

We would advise readers to examine these things critically, that LDS “prophets” have taught, and see how they contrast very much from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament from the Bible.

2 thoughts on “Mormon Blood Sacrifice connected to Mountain Meadows Massacre”

  1. Whomever wrote this op-ed is mixing truth with fallacious rhetoric. It has never been my experience to disavow or run from the Journals of discourse. Neither have I heard the prophet will never lead us astray. I’m in the heart of Utah, a Mormon, and am 41. If you are going to tell the history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, you should tell it correctly and include that it was under the stress of the U.S. army who were sent to “deal” with the Mormons after they left the known states. They were instructed by Brigham Young to save aminition and food stores for times of uncertainty ahead which came with the U.S. troops. The emigrants were traveling to California and were upset when they passed through Cedar City because they would not sale ammunition or food as they had been advised to stock up for the attack coming from soldiers in their way. And it was a five day killing which ended on September 11. Not just a one day ordeal. You may also mention when the two leaders in Cedar City, Isaac Haight and John D. Lee were both told before that time by both Brigham Young and another nearby leader to not engage them in physical violence (as there had been words spoken in anger) because words, are just air,” as one leader said. They didn’t listen. So, everyone who was involed in it was excommunicated from the church, on person was put to death, while 9 others were put in prison. Brigham Young didn’t order of condone it. He punished those responsible to the greatest degree (same way by today’s standards), and your theory about the “first 9/11” is inaccurate. You are misinforming because you hate. It is a dark spot in Mormon history. We know it and it is not taught as a great act. Again, they were excommunicated from the church, imprisoned, and one was given the death penalty. As to the blood sacrifice, you can interpret that the way you did or other ways. It isn’t uncommon a theme in religion for blood sacrificed to save or redeem a soul. It was Christ himself who said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for another” John 15:13 (KJV). The idea of spilling ones blood in the protection of another has always been seen as rementive; not just in religion. I read what Brigham Young said in the Journals of Discourse, which aren’t actually scripture to Mormons, just further teachings and discourses (recorded letters and speaches given), as people who turned their back on the Lord and his church when it would have been better for them to have spilled their blood in his defense. It is all over in the Bible the Lord and his prophets say if you don’t do x, it would have been better than if you had never been born. If you are not willing to die for the savior or at least defend his holiness, why wouldn’t he turn his back on you? It would be better that you do she’d your blood than turn your back to him and deny his sacrifice. It reads that way to me and is supported by the Bible as well. Mormons use the Bible as well, you do know that, right? So, you can see the fallacies in your op-ed piece here. You mix two things which aren’t connected by leaving out major communications and back ground knowledge of each, but play twist them to connect them anyway you can. I’d love to talk to you more if your willing. I have the full set of The Journals of Discourses (20 volumes). Here’s a link. http://www.josephsmithfoundation.org/journalofdiscourses/

    As the link explains, they are talks and articles written by prophets and apostles and others in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from the time of Joseph Smith, not scripture, and no one I know is afraid of them. We also have a monthly magazine with articles called, “The Ensign,” which we look at and study for modent day lessons. We don’t regard that as scripture either. If your just anti-Mormon, you can just say that and own it. It doesn’t bother me at all. People who have truths manifest to them know it. I don’t convince anyone, it is the Holy Spirit and the words of the Savior and his prophets to whom we look and pray for understanding and our own revelation about the truthfulness of their teachings. If your source for all things Mormon doesn’t know that, then you may need to listen to someone who understands that there is a difference between baptism and conversion. Everyone must pray to their maker to find truths. If they do so with a sincere heart, honestly seeking truth, they’ll find the answers. If they mock or go into it with skepticism, probably not. Definitely not I would say, but I don’t know the path for everyone. Talk soon if you’d really be interested. If you’re going to mock, make fun of, or try and “school me,” save us both the time and don’t bother. I know what I believe. I know a lot of the anti-Mormon jargon. It’s easy to prove wrong, but my place isn’t to convert by conflict. If you need facts and proof, then that’s what you need. It’s interesting, I was watching a show the other day, can’t remember which, and there were a couple of characters arguing about how the Earth formed and how things are (both atheist, one may have been agnostic) and they were both making very good points scientifically. The thought came to me, not revelation, I just think a lot and am smart AF, most people think religion and science are mutually exclusive. How can they be? The element missing from both sides is simply Faith. In science, when you cannot prove a hypothesis but the evidence points to a most likely, there needs to be faith that it just is. (I know how intense scientists are when it comes to data and proving their hypothesis), and the same goes with religion. Are we greater than God? Why can’t he use science then? See the error in human thinking. Crazy how people put chains and rules on God as if they think we are mightier than he. I love Carl Sagan and some of his thoughts about religion. He couldn’t be religious or athiest in his mind because neither could prove the existence or lack thereof of a higher power. He also likes the idea of religion. Fascinating man. Very deep and thought provoking. Truth can come from a lot of places, but when truth is left out or half truths are given, we fail to see. Also, when we are biased or have ourselves closed off to anything being true, we miss a lot of opportunities to learn truth.

  2. Hi Travis,

    Thanks for taking the time to respond. I too, am a man in my 40s who grew up in the church, and loved it. I have not been offended by anyone in the LDS church, and only left because I found it’s doctrines did not match the Jesus of the Bible, and found it’s history didn’t match up to it’s claims for truthfulness, and found that the LDS church tries to hide the facts. This is why I had to write this article and many others on this site, to make Mormons aware of the things that are in their own doctrines which I wish I would have realized sooner while I was a member.

    Travis, you said “Neither have I heard the prophet will never lead us astray.” If you haven’t heard this, then please read their official declaration, where the LDS President and “Prophet” states in clear, plain terms:
    “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

    See the declaration here:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

    If you think that the Journal of Discourses is not LDS scripture, then please take a look at the multiple sources quoted in our article on “What is considered LDS Scripture” which seem to say otherwise:
    https://ldsfacts.org/mormon-church-history/what-is-considered-lds-scripture/

    The Journal of Discourses doesn’t just say more atrocious and heretical things like that people in interracial marriages should be put to death, as is cited in our article:
    https://ldsfacts.org/mormon-church-history/lds-scripture-says-those-in-interracial-marriages-should-be-killed/

    You quote “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for another” John 15:13 (KJV), but you’re missing the point of that scripture, that Christ laid down his life for all of us, so that we don’t have to shed our blood. That’s the whole point!

    John 3:16-18
    “16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

    Is there anywhere in the entire New Testament in the Bible that says Jesus sacrifice wasn’t enough to cover certain sins? No, there isn’t, and this is the point. Jesus is enough.

    In the Bible in 1 John 2:22 it says
    “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

    http://bible.cbn.com/#!/bible/kjv/62/2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *