Talk:Blood atonement

message: It is strongly debated weather or not Joseph Smith practiced or preached polygamy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnBUfIDl0gE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C581:F960:9F33:94B3:C7DE:1E96 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you can see why a YouTube video by what could charitably be called an amateur historian isn't a useful source to contest accepted history. XeCyranium (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: takes controversial points for granted

message: Having studied this issue in depth, I have tried to keep this as NPOV as possible, showing arguments from both critics and Latter-day Saints, but have taken a more moderate approach from a historian’s point of view and the most recent research on the subject. Additions are welcome. Due to the controversial nature of this page, I would prefer deletions to be discussed on the talk page prior to deletion, in order to keep NPOV and consistency. (Comment taken from article; not sure who wrote it).
"The blood atonement doctrine is often confused with the unrelated so-called "blood oaths" that were part of the Latter-day Saint Endowment ceremony prior to 1990 (see below)."
I haven't been able to find any reasonably unbiased source for this statement--aside from books in the vein of "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" and "One Nation Under Gods". I'd appreciate a citation of this, as "below" doesn't seem to shed any light on the issue.
--S.B.
:Can you clarify your question? I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking for references where there is confusion, (the Tanners state that one should not confuse the two in some of their works) or are you asking for references on the oaths? Or are you aksing for documentation on temple changes? Or something else? Also, so we can properly address, what is your definition of a "reasonably unbiased source?" I'd hardly call Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" and "One Nation Under Gods" 'unbiased', as you seem to...? Please clarify? -Visorstuff 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed
Another clearer example of the practice blood atonement is the 1866 murder of the former-slave, Thomas Coleman (or Colburn), who was in good standing as a member of the LDS Church. However, as Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn has documented, Coleman was apparently secretly courting a white Mormon woman, contrary to both territorial law and Mormon doctrine at the time. At one of their clandestine meetings behind the old Arsenal (on what is now Capitol Hill in Salt Lake) on December 11, Coleman was discovered by "friends" of the woman. The group of vigilantes brained Coleman with a large rock, and then took his own bowie knife and slit his throat so deeply from ear to ear he was nearly decapitated. He was also castrated, and further mimicing the blood covenants of the temple ritual, his right breast was sliced open. A pre-penciled placard was then pinned to his corpse stating, "NOTICE TO ALL NIGGERS - TAKE WARNING - LEAVE WHITE WOMEN ALONE." The ritualistic secnario of the murder seems to be in direct obedience to a public statement made by Brigham Young on March 3, 1863: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110.) Even though it was the middle of winter, a grave was dug and Coleman's body disposed of in less than three hours after its discovery. Tellingly, less than twelve hours after that, Judge Elias Smith, first cousin of Joseph Smith, appointed George Stringham (a Mormon ruffian and vigilante with ties to Porter Rockwell, Jason Luce, and William Hickman) as the foreman of the Coroner's Jury; they briefly met and summarily dismissed the case as committed by person or persons unknown to the jury, abruptly ending all official enquiry into the bizarre murder. (See Quinn, Extensions of Power, p. 256 and Daily Union Vedette, 15 December 1866.)
</div>
I tried to edit it to meet neutrality standards but couldn't do it and I don't have access to Quinn's book so I am bringing it here --Trödel 06:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV paragraph 

message: "Some modern Mormon apologetics also compare Young’s statement to the statement of Jesus Christ in the New Testament that it would be better for those who offend children to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the depths of the sea than to be born."
I cannot find any reference at FAIR or on the web to support this statement, so I'm putting it here for now until something can be located. Maybe it's in print somewhere? Bochica 03:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologetic statement about millstone

message: I confess to having recently made a wholesale reversion on this page (-3,848). I don't like doing that and don't think it's generally appropriate, but the mass of edits by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey appeared to result in information that was incredibly POV, and I just didn't know where to start with my revisions. (Apart from incidents of pure vandalism, the edit made by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey that asserted that blood atonement is a "fundamental" doctrine of today's LDS Church and is currently practiced in the church is probably one of the most outrageously false statements about the LDS Church I've ever come across in a Wikipedia article!) Some of the material I reverted could and should probably be added back in, but I think I personally would need to request for assistance in attempting to do this. –SESmith 09:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SESmith, you will find that most of the material added by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey to the article was copied verbatim from the MRM site from the article Blood Atonement - If It Was Never Taught, Why Do So Many Mormons Believe It?. The same material and quotes are already covered later in the article anyway - I immediately recognized the material added because I had already referenced the site and that same article. There are one or two quotes that were added that we can add back in however. Bochica 13:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well, that makes me feel better about what I did since not only was it repetitive it probably violated WP:COPY. Thanks for the heads up—I'm not overly familiar with this article yet. -SESmith 13:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Couple of points.  1) the materials were vetted and are not copyvio from mrm.  2) verifiability and not truth. The Salt Lake Tribune reports this doctrine is still practiced.   3) These new edits read like an ad for the Mormon Church.  I could request protection for this article.  Changes reverted.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This most certainly is a copy verbatim of passages from the mrm site - it even has a few of the typos from that page (it gets the SLT ref wrong for the James Wood incident). Also the SLT article does not say that the doctrine is still practiced, in fact it juxtaposes the experience of Wood's interaction with local church leaders with another account of Arthur Gary Bishop, where a local leader told Bishop that the doctrine of blood atonement ended with Jesus Christ. The SLT reports only that the concept exists to varying extents within Mormon culture, but not that the church currently practices, teaches, or supports it. It even states that there is disagreement among historians "whether there were any actual cases of blood atonement." Like Sesmith, I think that a lot of this could be worked into the article describing how the concept exists within Mormon culture and folklore, but to say that blood atonement as such is a fundamental doctrine and practice of the LDS church is very misleading if not outright wrong. Reverting. --FyzixFighter 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wholesale reversion

message: I have requested reversion and protection of this article pursuant to WP:COI.  The materials claimed as copyvio are quotes from Mormon Church officials.  I see no copyvio with referring to their quotes or statements in this article.  Have requested reversion and locking of article to discuss with imparticla editors regarding content.  Clear and obvious POV pushing in the article by LDS editors. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous. I do not claim to be Mormon and I am in no conflict of interest. If anything, POV pushing is claiming a doctrine is "fundamental" to a religion when there is zero indication on their official website that they teach or practice the doctrine. You're not just writing that the SLT reports that it is fundamental, you are saying it is fundamental, which is POV. Copryright is violated whenever you take material verbatim from a source (apart from a single quote). Even if this is just a series of quotes from LDS leaders, if you copy the structure of the sequential quotes or the format and exact language in which ideas are presented, you are violating  copyright. I checked the reference and it is a blatant violation of WP:COPY. This cannot be tolerated by WP and any request to protect it from a member who is violating copyright will probably be met with skepticism. -SESmith 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I take it you have no objection to the quotes of brigham young stating the marrying someone who is black was punishable by death under the blood atonement doctrine or the quotes of the SLT stating LDS Church officials as recently as 1998 were asking murderers to submit to execution for their faith? I do not care to argue about the other matters with you provided we are in agreement on these areas. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. But you can't just cut and paste the quotes and discussion of them off a website without violating copyright. It must be written in your own words. And to maintain POV NPOV, commentary about what modern church leaders and commentators say about these quotes and claims should also be added. -SESmith 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that a freudian slip?  to maintain POV.   Shouldn't that be maintain NPOV? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Tends to happen when I get going with the WP acronyms. I think you probably understood my meaning. -SESmith 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You also might want to take a look at the actual SLT article before making claims about what it says (I've downloaded a text copy of it and can send it to you via email if you can't find a copy of it). The article is actually from 1994 (not 1998, that's one of the typos that carried over when you copy-pasted from the MRM site) and it's the allegation of the defense that a local leader visited, to which the LDS first presidency responded by filing a document "denying the doctrine as it has been popularized" along with the reprint of the McConkie 1978 statement. The paper also recounts another local leader in the early 80s telling a convicted murderer on death row the exact opposite - that blood atonement is not applicable today. Either way, local leaders do not set the doctrine or practices of the church, making this an element of mormon culture and folklore and speculation, but not actual practiced doctrine. --FyzixFighter 03:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You are correct that local sources do not set doctrine and policy for the church (which changes every other general conference based on which way the wind is blowing at temple square), what local sources do is report on the statements of the church vs. the actions of church leaders and members.  In other words, the SLT has been known for years to call the church on the carpet on its public misrepresentations. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's the actions of local church members only that must be made clear and separated from official LDS Church doctrine. Your edits did not make the distinction. Such a distinction is very basic to getting NPOV right, and I wish you could reassure us that that is your ultimate goal, as your comments here don't seem terribly imbued with NPOV. -SESmith 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The people are the church.  The church is the people.   Church leaders should know better.  SLT has recorded and asserted church leaders are still advising convicted murderers they should allow their "blood to be spilled" (not lethal injection, not the electric chair -- firing squad or beheading), these are notable facts.  Brigham Youngs teachings and the false statements in the article claiming he never made them need to be resolved.   These types of inaccurate materials and whitewashing harm the church's image and public faith and trust more than the unvarnished statements of its past leaders.  In addition to lowering the overall quality of this project.  Our project is not a tabloid for faith inspiring LDS stories, but for encyclopedic writings about the real LDS church, not its public relations front.   That's the sincere opinion of Jeff the humble Nephite.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The people may be the church, but realistically there is a vast difference between actions of individual Mormons and official doctrines or practices that are authorized by the LDS Church. NPOV must acknoweldge the difference. That was my point. It's not our concern at all how the statements of anyone affects any institution, either pro or con, so I'm not sure what the purpose of your last 4 sentences are. If the LDS church makes claims about Young's teachings that you feel are lies, WP still reports them to maintain NPOV. No one editor or body holds the exclusive hold on "the truth" of history or what it means (in WP-land, anyway). -SESmith 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's make the effort here and see how it turns out. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (frelling edit conflict) You're absolutely right - Local church leaders should no better, which is why the first presidency responded the way they did. The SLT in that 1994 article only reports the allegations a single instance of this happening (and the subsequent action by the higher-ups in the church hierarchy), but also reports an instance where the local leadership did know better and didn't support this doctrine. In all honesty, the more I read that article, for the most part I really enjoy its attempts at balance and succinct yet broad summary of the concept. It's definitely a worthwhile source, or at least an indicator of other good sources (Gillepsie's an Gardener's works especially look intriguing). --FyzixFighter 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the 1998 article?  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before (though probably not clearly), there is no 1998 article. There is just a 1994 article. The 1998 reference on the MRM page is a typo. I did the search myself to see what the article(s) really said and only turned up a Nov 5, 1994 article, from which both quotes that the MRM uses appear to come from. The search did not turn up any article on Nov 5, 1998 D1 SLT that talked about blood atonement. You have read the actual 1994 article, right? Not just the MRM summary? --FyzixFighter 05:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Requested 

message: "There is no conclusive evidence, however, that Young directed any [specific] killings based on the doctrine."
::Note the weasel word "specific".  
I think we know based on materials in the Journal of Discourses this statement is not backed up by reliable sources.  The sources state:
=== Crimes Related to Blood Atonement ===
Murder: "I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God..." (Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 5:296).
Adultery: "Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case, and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands" (Brigham Young, JOD 3:247).
Stealing: "If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing. I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity ... If I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do, to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people" (Brigham Young, JOD 1:108).
Marriage to a person of black skin: "Shall I tell you of the law of God in regards to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Brigham Young, JOD 10:110)
Covenant Breaking: "I say, there are men and women that I would advise to got to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye ... I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood ... Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid" (Jedediah M. Grant, JOD 4:49-51).
Grant would later be quoted in the Deseret News, as saying, "We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him..."(7/27/1854).
Heber C. Kimball stated, "If men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants" (JOD 4:375). The phrase "according to their covenants" refers Mormon Temple Covenants.
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs corrections already 

message: Murder: "I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God..." (Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 5:296).
Adultery: "Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case, and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands" (Brigham Young, JOD 3:247).
Stealing: "If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing. I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity ... If I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do, to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people" (Brigham Young, JOD 1:108).
Marriage to a person of black skin: "Shall I tell you of the law of God in regards to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Brigham Young, JOD 10:110)
Covenant Breaking: "I say, there are men and women that I would advise to got to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye ... I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood ... Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid" (Jedediah M. Grant, JOD 4:49-51).
Grant would later be quoted in the Deseret News, as saying, "We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him..."(7/27/1854).
Heber C. Kimball stated, "If men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants" (JOD 4:375). The phrase "according to their covenants" refers Mormon Temple Covenants.
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes Related to Blood Atonement 

message: The Salt Tribune reported in 1994 that the Mormon Church actively practices the Doctrine of Blood Atonement even into modern times.  An article titled "Concept of Blood Atonement Survives in Utah Despite Repudiation," Peggy Fletcher Stack, staff writer for the Salt Lake Tribune, wrote, "In the past decade, potential jurors in every Utah capital homicide were asked whether they believed in the Mormon concept of 'blood atonement'" (11/5/94, p.D1),
During the 1998 trial of child-killer James Edward Wood, a Utah Mormon, who allegedly murdered 11-year-old Jaralee Underwood, The Salt Lake Tribune reported vists by LDS Church leaders who "talked to him about shedding his own blood" (Salt Lake Tribune, 11/5/98, D1). 
Let's vet and add these quotes too. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salt Lake Tribune quotations 

message: Does anybody know where the doctrine of "restitution" came from? (The doctrine that repentance requires not just confession and forsaking of the sin, but restitution as well) The present article says it originated with Willard Richards and George A. Smith, but I can't find any citation to back that up. It was clearly being taught in 1856 by the First Presidency, but who came up with the idea? I don't think it was Joseph Smith. This is an important background element on which blood atonement is based. COGDEN 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrine of restitution? 

message: i removed POV and citation tags that was added today to one section. in doing so, i am not endorsing the current version (which I know can be imporoved), but i am noting that no reason for the tag was given. Please add it back, after you put feedback as to why on the talk page in its own section. Adding a tag without giving reason does not help improve the article but leads the reader to wonder, if there are sources given, but it says sources are needed, which statements are verifiable? What is POV and by which side? It causes more questions and is against wikipedia policy to do so. -Visorstuff 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons were previously stated, however, based upon the proper placement of the accurate verified statements of Brigham Young, I no longer feel the tags are needed.  The article accurately depicts Brigham Young discussing openly the doctrine.  At this time in Church History, for whatever reason, Young felt it necessary to hold such a doctrine to preserve the Church, and I do not think anyone alive today could truly appreciate why he was guided to do so.  Showing the true history gives much more power and color to the history of the Saints.    This is quite mild compared to the commandments of God in the Old Testament regarding Hebrew history.  There are many accounts where the Isrealites were ordered to wipe out entire cultures in the Holy Lands.  The accuracy and tone of this article has improved a lot.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the article has reached such a high level of quality, the paragraph on Native American History I wanted to add to the article to improve it I can now add. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of POV and citation tags

message: I don't think the image of Joseph Smith before the Nauvoo Legion is appropriate in this article. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever taught the blood atonement doctrine. What Smith taught was the "blood for blood" doctrine, which is different (it was about retribution, not atonement). But he never taught that a person's blood could atone for their own sins, or at least nobody I know of has ever presented evidence of this. As far as anybody knows, the doctrine originated with Brigham Young in 1845, after Smith's death. Maybe we can get another image that would be more appropriate. COGDEN 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith's statements about blood being spilt on the groud seem to line right up with Blood atonement.  It is also somewhat prophetic since his last public address he stated that should he fail to protect the mormon people, "his blood should be spilt on the ground like water".  Exactly which doctrine do you think he was referring to? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, did you read COGDEN's sentences above? The doctrines Smith taught was and that you refer to are differen than blood atonement. You seem to have confusion on the various "blood" teachings of Christianity, and als Mormonism. Just becuase he talked about blood being spilled, doesn't mean that he was referring to Blood atonement. Blood doctrines (including sacrifice, christ's atonement, blood atonement, uncleanness, vengeance, and john's famous blood water and the spirit, and the blood doctrines of justifiation and sanctification) appear in 375 verses in the Bible, and much less in the other mormmon scriptures, whcih is suprising when you consider 3/4 of the book of mormon deals with war. There are many doctrines dealing with blood - smith's blood for blood and young's blood atonement are very different things. as you are familiar with mormonism, we thought you had at least this basic understanding. -Visorstuff 20:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have found at least one quotation from Smith regarding Blood Atonement where he stated that a murdered should be beheaded and his blood spilt on the ground like water.  Sounds like the same doctrine.  This was not an answer to my question.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is a view on capital punishment. Blood Atonement deals with paying sins with your own blood. Big difference, although I'm starting to see where your confusion is. -Visorstuff 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Leave the photo where it is and let's take a timeout for a minute and discuss this.  From my research, smith taught blood atonement based upon his statements.  Tell me where I am getting this wrong? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies - lets move this discussion to the below, as the inline comments are messing up this section. You seem to be confusing punishment and atonement, as well as  -Visorstuff 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the current picture is misleading at best. -SESmith 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about an image of --rogerd (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As Gilmore was not a religious figure, nor did he believe in blood atonment, i don't think an image of him would be appropriate, except for the section on Utah captial punishment. In any case, the picture of smith is misleading and irrelevant. It should be removed ASAP. -Visorstuff 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image of Joseph Smith 

message: Okay – another issue – the caption of the article quotes from Smith’s last public address. The first part of the caption currently states:
:Will you stand by me to the death? I call God and angels to witness I have unsheathed my sword with a firm and unalterable determination ... or my blood shall be spilt on the ground like water...." Lieutenant General Joseph Smith addressing the Nauvoo Legion in Nauvoo, Illinois. This was his last public address as Prophet of the Mormon Church before being arrested by the State of Illinois for burning down the Expositor, an opposition newspaper owned by William Law which exposed the Mormon Church practice of polygamy in Nauvoo. Joseph Smith was assassinated shortly afterward in Carthage Jail.
What the heck does this section have to do with blood atonement? (atoning for sins with your own blood). And by this time, was SMith still Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion? I thought that his term ended earlier that year, not June 1844. 
In any case, he is talking about defending the rights of the people of Nauvoo. Here is the section of the speech in question (see http://www.cumorah.com/etexts/lastpublicaddress.txt):
:We are American citizens. We live upon a soil for the liberties of which our fathers periled their lives and spilt their blood upon the battle-field. Those rights, so dearly purchased, shall not be disgracefully trodden under foot by lawless marauders without at least a noble effort on our part to sustain our liberties.
:’’’Will you all stand by me to the death,’’’ and sustain, at the peril of your lives, the laws of our country, and the liberties and privileges which our fathers have transmitted unto us, sealed with their sacred blood?  (“Aye,” shouted thousands.)  He then said -- “It is well.  If you had not done it, I would have gone out there, (pointing to the west,) and would have raised up a mightier people.
:I call upon all men, from Maine to the Rocky Mountains, and from Mexico to British America, whose hearts thrill with horror to behold the rights of freemen trampled under foot, to come to the deliverance of this people from the cruel hand of oppression, cruelty, anarchy and misrule to which they have been long made subject.  Come, all ye lovers of liberty, break the oppressor’s rod, loose the iron grasp of mobocracy, and bring to condign punishment all those who trample under foot the principles of our glorious constitution and the people’s rights.  (Drawing his sword, and presenting it to heaven, he said) – ‘’’I call God and angels to witness that I have unsheathed my sword with a firm and unalterable determination’’’ that this people shall have their legal rights, and be protected from mob violence, ‘’’or my blood shall be spilt upon the ground like water,’’’ and my body consigned to the silent tomb.  While I live, I will never tamely submit to the dominion of a cursed mobocracy.  I would welcome death rather than submit to this oppression; and it would be sweet, oh, sweet to rest in the grave, rather than submit to this oppression, agitation, annoyance, confusion, and alarm upon alarm, any longer.
In this he is calling upon his people to defend their rights. Not to make people atone for their own sins. 
The second part of the caption reads: 
:The History of the Church indicates that the concept of Blood Atonement was initially taught by Joseph Smith. "I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God..." (Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 5:296).'
Again, this is a vew of capital punishemnt. Even the tanners say it is related to blood atonement as it deals with shedding of blood, but not part of the concept of blood atonement itself see http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no56.htm. 
The caption in other words, has no bearing on the article, and the picture of smith holding a sword is misleading. -Visorstuff 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption issues

message: I've been thinking about creating a separate article called Mormonism and violence to deal with a lot of the material that is often linked with blood atonement, but really has little if anything to do with the doctrine itself, such as the Mountain Meadows massacre. It would also be a summary article for violence against Mormons, such as the Haun's Mill massacre, the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., the murder of Parley P. Pratt. I think such an article would be more informative than the way violence by Mormons is now separated from violence against Mormons, because it would include more context for why some early Mormons were so trigger-happy and vengeful. COGDEN 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have so many individual articles on teh topic, hauns mill, danites, mmm, utah war, etc., I wonder if a category would be more appropriate. It seems a bit strange ot have an article that simply points to other articles - unless new informaiton was added. It seems it would become a messy articel like Criticism_of_Mormonism, etc. But am curious as to what do you have in mind? Can you provide more of your thinking on this? -Visorstuff 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is that it would briefly cover a lot of other articles in summary style, and then add some info that doesn't really fit anywhere else. We have lots of separate articles, such as blood atonement, Danites, Oath of Vengeance, Mormon War, Utah War, etc., but we don't have any article that ties them all together, other than the History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, and that article is so broad and comprehensive that I think the violence issues would get lost. The article would also cover several topics that don't really fit anywhere else, such as Joseph Smith's "blood for blood"/"law of God" doctrine, views on retribution, Nephi's killing of Laban, and LDS teachings on suicide, assisted suicide, corporal punishment, self defense, BofM teachings on the "justness" of war and participation of Mormons in unjust wars (Mormon Nazis, etc.), etc. COGDEN 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll support the idea - but not sure i love the name. Violence denotes fighting, whereas, at its core, blood atonement is a willingness to give of your own blood as an offering for your own sins. See the Confessions of John D. Lee for example. I don't think Mormon views on untimely deaths is appropriate, as it can't discuss zionistic violence by moses and others. But it may be the closest we have. perhaps you start the article and i'll use the talk page to request additional article names? -Visorstuff 22:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: "Mormonism and violence" superarticle? 

message: Merkey, as I mentioned above, I think I'm starting to see where your confusion is happening. One is in the idea of atonement versus punishment; the second is blood doctrines in general. In any case, it looks like my edit didn't take (an edit conflict of some sort. The current photo caption is WAAAAAAYYY too long, and still does not deal with the article at hand. I apologize for the length of this, but I hope this context will be helpful. 
In giving this context, I want to make it clear that I don't have an opinion on the veracity of Blood atonement. Especially outside of a theocracy. It is not a doctrine I advance or espouse, but think it is interesting from a historical perspective. And I’m also erring on the side that you really want to know the answers to this. 
Now, as I mentioned, I think you are confusing punishment with atonement. Specifically, capital punishment with that of blood atonement. in my explanation below, please note I'm using the KJV of the bible. 
In the old testament, the Law of Moses called for capital punishment for a number of offenses, which we'll get to in a second. however, even before capital punishment was instituted, the idea that the blood of the slain cried unto God was taught in Genesis 4:10-11 (Cain and Able). Capital punishment was instituted five chapters later in Genesis 9:5-6, which reads:
:And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
Clearly God is concerned with how we leave this world, and how we come into this world. 
Exodus 22 discusses the idea of blood being shed for sins, but this again, is not blood atonement, this is punishment. The Jews and the Muslims believed in shedding blood to provide restitution for sins such as thievery, murder, etc. But this is restitution for sin, not atoning for sins with blood. This scripture states: 
:If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution;
This idea is put forth in bunch of old testament passages. 
In leviticus 20, we have a number of passages taht talk about blood being upon (or covering; ie restituion) the sins of the perpertrator. Captital offenses in these passages seem to be different than the capital offenses of other passages such as number 35. Captital offenses here include:  cursing parents, adultry with father's wife, incest, homosexuality, bestiality and psychic work. In numbers 35, we have approved retribution for murder ("The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him." and "And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood")
Now for the idea of blood atonement, also in number 35, we read: "blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." 
In the new testament, we have John's wonderful discourse on water, blood and spirit (john 5), which is expanded upon by Moses (For by the awater ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are bjustified, and by the cblood ye are dsanctified; moses 6:59-62). In these passages, it teaches that blood can save us - typically, we believe that the blood of christ saves us. it pays restitution for our sins that we cannot ourselves. But that idea was tuaght by moses in leviticus as well: 
:For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
In the book of mormon the idea is taken just a bit farther. Those who know better or who have entered into covenants with God. for them the blood of christ would not atone for their shedding of the blood of their brethren, as it once had, as they had entered into the covenant, accepting the atonement: 
:Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren. Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords aagain they can no more be bwashed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins. Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us ahide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us bclean thereby. And now it came to pass that when the king had made an end of these sayings, and all the people were assembled together, they took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man’s blood, and they did abury them up deep in the earth. And this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they anever would use weapons again for the shedding of man’s blood; and this they did, vouching and bcovenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would cgive up their own lives; and rather than take away from a brother they would give unto him; and rather than spend their days in idleness they would labor abundantly with their hands.  (Alma 24: 12-13, 15, 17-18)
See once again, i need to emphasize that once they had accepted the atonement, they were fearful to shed non-innocent blood as they thought that sin would no longer "be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God" This idea is again taught in Mosiah 11:
:For behold, and also his ablood batoneth for the sins of those who have cfallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the dwill of God concerning them, or who have eignorantly sinned.
But does it cover those who knowingly sin? Yes, the atonement does. But D&C 132: 19, 26-27 states that in cases of murder by those who have entered into the new and everlasting covenant, (as Young taught), the atonement cannot work. That is where blood atonement comes into play. 
Alma further teaches:
:Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is ajust, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the alife of him who hath bmurdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. (Alma 32:11-12)
Again, please note, that this applies to the laws of the gospel (ie those who accept the gospel) not those who are outside of teh gospel (capital punishment)
Now as far as Smith's statement of his own blood flowing, a contemporary of his wrote: "their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the aaltar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen." Again, this is avenging, not atoning. 
So we have punishment, retribution and vengeance on one hand of those who commit murder, and on the other hand we have self-atonement, repentance and restitution. I think you are confusing these two concepts. -Visorstuff 23:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what Visorstuff has written above. I think there has been or continues to be some confusion over the two separate issues. They should be differentiated and kept separate in WP articles -SESmith 23:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current caption with the photo.  It does help to differenciate between the various confusing doctrines in this area.  Its also a great picture of Smith.  It really adds to the article.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the analysis of Visorstuff, although I would classify the statement in Numbers 35, "blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it", as still relating to retribution, not blood atonement. This is the same as Joseph Smith's "blood for blood" doctrine, where spilled blood requires punishment by bloodshed as a matter of retribution. The idea is that when someone is killed, there is an imbalance in the universe that can only be balanced by the retributive spilling of more blood. It doesn't say that the spilling of the murderer's blood puts the murder right with God, only that God's retribution is satisfied by spilling the murderer's blood. The murder, of course, could still go to hell as far as God is concerned. It's a subtle distinction, I think, that has led many to assume that Joseph Smith taught the blood atonement doctrine, which he didn't as far as anybody knows. COGDEN 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuation of photo discussion

message: I also like the neutral presentation of Smith's statements.  The editing style of this group of editors is vastly improving and becoming more neutral.  I really like the re-wording and presentation of those materials.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost gave the article an "A".  The Original research takes the grade back to "F" for neutrality.  No more original research please. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, how does using someone elses research constitute original research? I simply noted that the term and concept exist outside of Mormonism. And not including makes this article all about Mormonism, which is not neutral if others use the term. what is not neutral about it? It is like an article on repentance and only presenting the Mormon view of it. -Visorstuff 04:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith's teachings about the concept of blood atonement 

message: I did a quick search earlier today for Blood atonement eliminating Mormonism from the search, and came up with over a million christian, Jewish and Islamic sources that discuss the term "blood atonement" and define it as I did in the article's new lead paragraph. I noticed that Merkey deleted the section, calling it original research, however, if someone else uses and defines the term as cited, it is not WP:OR]]. I admit that the Non-LDS section of this article should be expanded, and even the LDS section forked off into its own article such as Blood atonement (Mormonism) or Blood atonement (Latter Day Saint), but to delete the section because it doesn't deal with mormonism is not wise. Not only is the term prevalent, but it was used historically and even books were written on the topic. The section should stay or the article loses credibility with the greater religious community. -Visorstuff 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also doing some research on what others have written on the topic outside of Mormonism, and I'll add in sections on each of the three major abrahamic religions that discuss the term. For now, the sections will be left blank, but we'll fill in the sections in the next couple of days. any assistance on this would be appreciated - there is a world of wealth on the topic. -Visorstuff 05:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, someone who is better at formatting an article than I, the headers are in a strange style - help would be appreciated as I don't have much time to work on this tonight. -Visorstuff 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need separate sections on non-Mormon blood atonement. In Judaism and Christianity, "blood atonement" is a rare way to refer to animal sacrifice (Korban), but the far more common term is animal sacrifice. This can be dealt with in a hatnote, rather than a separate section. The only concept of "blood atonement" unique to traditional Christianity is the Atonement, a far more common term that can also be referred to in a hatnote. I don't think there is a distinct usage of the term "blood atonement" in Islam, apart from referring to the animal sacrifices of the Bible. COGDEN 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make the change based on your thoughts. one quick disamig paragraph and image up front, then right into Mormonism. Perhaps a better image would be one of Jesus, rather than a lamb, as it deals with sins the atonement doesn't cover? -Visorstuff 19:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of the hatnote, but wonder if we should discuss the doctrine of atoning blood somewhere in the article. the reader is left to ask themselves, "why is blood needed in atonements?" This was the context I think is missing by deleting the comparison to the greater blood atonement doctrines of judaism and christianity. I think this is something most within mormonism don't quite understand the idea of being cleansed, jsutified and sanctified of blood water and the spirit. Blood - more specifically, spilt blood causes the change just as much as water for baptism. the three are so intermingled in doctrines - from the ordinance of birth to the law of sacrifice to the doctrine of work to the ordinance of the atonement, to death (holland and maxwell called these sacraments), that we often overlook the neccessity of blood, water and spirit. Cogden, do you think a discussion of this somewhere in the doctrinal basis section would make sense? TPJS would be the starting point, followed by Gospel Doctrine and Answers to Gospel Questions. Even the Messiah series and Talmage's JTC would be good background here. -Visorstuff 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would fit very well right at the beginning of the background section, immediately after the intro where the picture of Christ is. Maybe a brief explanation in the intro, as well, if possible, but I'm not sure how easy it is to summarize this in just a sentence or two. COGDEN 22:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood atonement out side of mormonism

message: :Hi all, I'm obviously new here. I'm not well-read enough to become a major contributor to this article, but I do see one overarching misrepresentation of LDS doctrine. This is in regards to D&C 132:19 and 26, which states there is no forgiveness for murder and is oft-quoted alongside the claim that it creates a discrepancy with other scriptures that state that all men may be forgiven of all sins thanks to an infinite atonement (Alma 34:11-13 and D&C 18:11-12). Here I will quote verbatim from D&C 76:34-39:
34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—
35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.
36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—
37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;
38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.
39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.
The murder spoken of in Section 132 is thus the murder of Jesus Christ -- those who "have knowledge" and willingly fight him are akin to accomplices in the crucifixion. This is the same as denying the Holy Spirit and is not for those who murder an innocent life other than Jesus. As far as official statements, I don't know of any offhand, though I'm sure I would be able to find something given the time. In fact, the footnotes of the two scriptures even cross-reference each other.
Alma states very clearly that the atonement is infinite and eternal. Due to the language of some of the quotes by Young and Taylor that read along the lines of "we believe the atonement will not work for some sins," I always had the understanding that these are simply referring to the fact that it won't be applied to the sinner in this life. The "atonement" process isn't in the execution, which, no matter the method, would be relatively painless compared to the infinite and eternal atonement Jesus suffered. This would actually be quite a loophole to exaltation due to the speed and ease of getting murdered. Rather, the atonement mentioned by Young and Taylor is the suffering that will take place in Spirit Prison before the resurrection. Perhaps after suffering through the millennium (such as those who refuse the atonement and inherit the telestial kingdom - D&C 19:16-18) the atonement will then take full effect and redeem the sinner, though this last bit is my speculation only and the time period could be less if the sinner is penitent. It's not clear to me whether this was fully explained by Brigham Young in the record we have, but this is the only answer that fits with other known doctrine without creating both a discrepancy and a ridiculously easy way out of experiencing Godly sorrow in spirit prison.
I will leave it up to you scholars to do with this what you will, and will let you edit as you see fit. However I do think it is important to represent the doctrine of forgiveness and murder accurately, based on canonized scripture: that all sins and murder are forgivable, aside from denying the Holy Spirit / murder of Jesus Christ.
Papaskunk 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation of forgiveness doctrine for murder 

message: The Mormon Church teaches that marrying someone of another race is a violation of God's laws and the blood of Jesus Christ does not extend to mixed race people who are a product of "mixing the seed". Biracial babies are "sacrificed" as part of blood atonement by the Mormon Church. Biracial converts are tought to offer themselves willingly as a blood atonement likewise. Mormon doctors are covertly performing abortions which are then labeled as miscarriages and "sacrificing" biracial babies of unbeknowing non-mormons and performing unessesary c-sections of women belonging to biracial marriages so they can covertly be given a tubal ligation preventing further pregnancies which they believe to be a "foul offence to God". Although young white Mormon missionaries go to great extreams making converts in foriene counties none return to America with a wife of another race. 777LOVE (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 777LOVE, thanks for bringing this to the discussion page.  It looks like you are new to Wikipedia.  Are you familiar with Wikipedia policies about verifiability and using reliable sources?  The material you have tried to add to the article, which you quoted above, is (to put it mildly) very far from the truth as I know it, so I have to wonder where it's coming from.  Can you tell us where this information is published? alanyst /talk/ 21:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Atonement for Mixing the Seed 

message: There's no clear organization and a lot of the material is repetitive, uses Mormon-specific jargon, and there isn't any organizational structure. I'd like to propose a drastic overhaul, with sections clearly dividing the topic into History, Doctrine, Practice, and Controversy. The stuff written above about biracial blood atonment and no intermarriage is a good example of how much misinformation there is out there.
MiriamKnight (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a total mess 

message: Here is a second that this page as a total mess.  There is ZERO neutrality as the author knows very well. For example, there is no shred of even remotely reliable historical evidence that the so called "Danites" ever existed. There is no conclusive proof to show that the doctrine of "blood atonement" and alleged in the context of this article, was ever taught by mainstream LDS leaders. The few statements that are backed up by citations are taken from partial quotes and the statements are taken wholly out of context -- apparently deliberately so.  Most all citations are taken from known anti-mormon literature which are far from neutral and wholly rejected by the scholarly LDS studies community.  Most so called "quotes" and "citations" and "evidence" taken are fourth level heresay writings from individuals who were in known opposition to the LDS church at the time. If I tell you something, then that person tells another person, then that person tells another person, then that person tells someone who is in KNOWN opposition to person who originally stated the message and then writes it down in a journal, how reliable do you think this source is?  I hold two (2) doctorate degrees and can say with certainty that there is not a shred of historical truth found on this page.  This is nothing more than anti-mormon rhetoric and has zero scholarly significance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.96.73.187 (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's start with the sources, since that's what the foundation of a good Wikipedia article should be.  Which sources used by this article do you feel are not reliable or are being misused, and are there any sources not cited that you think should be?  (I recommend reading the policy on reliable sources if you haven't already, to see how Wikipedia editors should evaluate sources for reliability.) alanyst /talk/ 18:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A total mess? Let's be honest, this is complete bullshit. 

message: Just because we have footnotes does not mean that they are credible.  In some recent research, an article was written by F.A.I.R. that gives statements by Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball and other Church leaders at the time clearly teaching against these doctrines and rumors.   There are a lot of other great works that could be cited, but only one side is given a story.  The fact that there is no evidence that any of this ever actually took place in the Church Leadership is not mentioned at all, and it should be there at the very outset.  None of this is fact, but it goes on and on like it was.  
http://www.fairlds.org/ --this is a link to that article, written feb 2011.  This article should start out with something like:  Blood atonement refers to doctrines attributed to LDS Church leaders of the mid 19th Century by anti-mormons in efforts to defame the Mormons, though there is no proof of such practices having ever been taught or carried out.  
Brigham Young teaches against blood atonement directly in the Journal of Discourses in Volume 11 (p 262), vol 2 (30, 32), and others.  It is also preached against by Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Heber Kimball, and others accused of teaching it.  All of the literature that promotes a mormon sponsoring of blood atonement is anti-mormon, and so most of these statements are completely biased in every imaginable way.  They are all completely out of context.  This is akin--quite literally, to letting the nazis write the article on judaism.
Read the article, people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.72.110 (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the sources for this article are completely biased to begin with 

message: I notice that the abbreviation "D&C" for the Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS scriptural canon is not explicitly explained in the text. I suggest inserting either "D&C" or "D&C 132" after the first reference to "Doctrine and Covenants 132" in the second ¶ of the Historical and doctrinal background section. All of the references to the Doctrine and Covenants in the text are to D&C 132, although there is one reference to D&C 42:18 in the Notes. I've also made "Doctrine and Covenants" an internal link since there is a now Wikipedia entry on the subject. <B>☺</B> Dick Kimball (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  D&C for Doctrine and Covenants 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Blood atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120311075052/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews6,21818 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews6,21818
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070808055434/http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org:80/EstZion/zionch11.htm to http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/EstZion/zionch11.htm#chapter11
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927051038/http://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFSRC/11.4Jessee.pdf to https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/11.4Jessee.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070611155711/http://www.fairlds.org:80/Misc/Did_Brigham_Young_Say_He_Would_Kill_an_Adulterous_Wife_with_a_Javelin.html to http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_Brigham_Young_Say_He_Would_Kill_an_Adulterous_Wife_with_a_Javelin.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blood atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901030738/http://phoenixnewtimes.com:80/Issues/2005-11-10/news/feature.html to http://phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2005-11-10/news/feature.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124153913/http://www.mrm.org:80/topics/salvation/blood-atonement-if-it-was-never-taught-why-do-so-many-mormons-believe-it to http://www.mrm.org/topics/salvation/blood-atonement-if-it-was-never-taught-why-do-so-many-mormons-believe-it
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the following from the paragraph about Lillian Chynoweth's interview:
:While in the The God Makers II, Lillian LeBaron Chynoweth refers to the "Mormon Church" as being responsible for the killings, the film does not specifically state that the "Mormon Church" referred to by Chynoweth is actually the "Church of the Lamb of God," which may suggest that she associated these activities of the Church of the Lamb of God with those of the LDS Church, informally known as the Mormon Church, at large.  The film also makes no mention the suicide and instead implies that Chynoweth was killed.
The first sentence seems like unsourced speculation on her thought processes. I also don't see how it's relevant to the article what the film might imply.Lusanaherandraton (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation about Lillian Chynoweth 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Blood atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C197295
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0ZoRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ie0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6285%2C4469368&dq=ronnie-lee-gardner&hl=en
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2005-11-10/news/feature.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121215103706/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews1,175293 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews1%2C175293
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mrm.org/topics/salvation/blood-atonement-if-it-was-never-taught-why-do-so-many-mormons-believe-it
*Added  tag to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C156707
*Added  tag to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews1%2C3298
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdeseretnews3%2C150800
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021617/http://www.mormonwiki.org/Unforgivable_sin_and_blood_atonement to http://www.mormonwiki.org/Unforgivable_sin_and_blood_atonement
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Blood atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907003218/http://www.childbrides.org/texas_YFZ_Blood_Atonement.html to http://www.childbrides.org/texas_YFZ_Blood_Atonement.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164224/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C14730 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C14730
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164239/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C4312 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C4312
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed this phrase in the partway through a paragraph, but neither source at the end of that sentence discuss this evidence - merely state the official response from TCoJCoLDS.
While I do not wish to dismiss this entirely, could it please have a cited source? OldMateFromAus (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in spite of evidence to the contrary" - please source