Blood Atonement
The US has carried out its 1,000th execution since capital punishment was reintroduced in 1976. With this “milestone,” some attention has turned to the person who was the first to die after the ban was lifted: Gary Gilmore in Utah. Gilmore’s eagerness to be executed, and the use of the firing squad in Utah seem to provide echoes of the controversial Mormon doctrine of “blood atonement,” whereby a killer’s blood atones for murder in a way Jesus’ atonement can not. The Church has repeatedly affirmed that it preaches no such doctrine (here is a letter from Bruce R. McConkie on the matter.)
To me, the Gilmore connection to blood atonement seems rather tenuous. Gilmore was not a baptized Mormon, was not raised as a Mormon, and at the end of his life expressed no sympathy with Mormonism or blood atonement. His choices were the firing squad or being hung; to me that’s a no-brainer (regardless of religion).
Comment by Chris Grant — December 2, 2005 @ 11:14 am
This subject was raised more explicitly in Utah a few years ago as the legislature contemplated eliminating the firing squad as a means of execution. Legislators formally asked the Church to comment on the matter and the Church responded that there was no doctrinal reason to have a firing squad. There were several articles on it in the Tribune but the archives are not free.
Comment by a random John — December 2, 2005 @ 11:46 am
I know nothing of Gary Gilmore, but I have been contemplating the death penalty and Blood Atonement. Obviously we don’t practice blood atonement in these latter-days nor have we ever (as far as I know).
I beleive for the ordinance of blood atonement to be practiced, the government will have to be run by the church, much like old testament times. This is one of the reasons I am against the death penalty is that can not serve the same purpose as it did during the old tesament times. If you catch my drift.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — December 2, 2005 @ 12:00 pm
“Ordinance of blood atonement”?…ummmm…
Not sure where you get the idea that such a thing exists, Ian.
Comment by J. Stapley — December 2, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
There is, in my opinion, a fundamental difference between the death penalty and blood atonement in that they are for entirely different purposes. Blood atonement is entirely forward looking in that it is being done in order to help the person’s future prospects of becoming a better person (in some way) in the after life. The death penalty is entirely backwards looking (unless we are violating the separation of church and state) by giving the person what they deserve. There is no forward looking to the criminal’s future, because it is actually an attempt to erase that person’s future. Blook atonement, on the other hand, is an attempt to erase that person’s past.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 2, 2005 @ 1:46 pm
Jeffrey (and Ian),
I’m a simple guy when it comes to doctrinal matters. I love history and philology, but doctrine….? Not my cup of tea.
But this notion you have about blood atonement (very BY of you, I know) doesn’t sit well with me. Why? Because Jesus’s infinite atonement is, well, infinite. If you murder someone, having your own blood shed isn’t going to make a bit of difference, IMO. Your only hope is Jesus. It’s a small hope, but it’s there.
Comment by Ronan — December 2, 2005 @ 5:22 pm
Chris,
I’ve always suspected that.
arJ,
Good call.
Comment by Ronan — December 2, 2005 @ 5:23 pm
Ronan, I think that Jeffrey was focusing on the role of repentance in the plan of salvation.
Comment by john fowles — December 3, 2005 @ 2:23 pm
I wasn’t attempting to defend or attack “blood atonement” in itself. I was simply trying to point out that it is very different from the death penalty as we know it and one cannot be used to support the other without a lot more argumentation than I have ever heard on the subject.
One of my friends asked where some good blood atonement quotes could be found in order to support his argument in favor of the death penalty against a friend of his. I didn’t exactly give him the help he was looking for.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 3, 2005 @ 4:57 pm
Awright, Jeffrey, I see your point: blood atonement is not the death penalty, so efforts to condone the death penalty through an appeal to blood atonement are unfounded.
Still, I don’t think there’s such a thing as blood atonement either…. (aside from the atoning blood of Jesus).
Comment by Ronan — December 5, 2005 @ 2:18 pm
That’s all I was asking for.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 5, 2005 @ 3:15 pm
My thoughts on the death penalty.
Comment by Ronan — December 5, 2005 @ 11:12 pm