Brigham Young advocated for violent retribution as a form of atonement. Let’s look at one of the most extreme examples of his teachings on blood atonement, a controversial and “unofficial” doctrine which teaches that some sins require the shedding of the sinner’s own blood for redemption and that they are beyond the scope of Christ’s Atonement. There are several deeply troubling aspects of Young’s ideology and leadership.
Blood Atonement
Every man and woman has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone.
Again, suppose the parties are not caught in their iniquity, and it passes along unnoticed, shall I have compassion on them? Yes, I will have compassion on them, for transgressions of the nature already named, or for those of any other description. If the Lord so orders it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live; and I say let them live and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do.
There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants.
Brigham Young, LDS Church President, delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, March 16, 1856, Instructions to the Bishops—Men Judged According to Their Knowledge—Organization of the Spirit and Body—Thought and Labor to Be Blended Together. Journal Of Discourses, Volume 3, Discourse 35, Page 247
https://journalofdiscourses.com/3/35
https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/128
Justification of Murder as Divine Justice
Young presents a scenario in which a man would be “justified” in murdering both his wife and her lover for adultery. He takes this justification further by claiming that such an act would actually allow the victims to “atone for their sins” and ultimately “be received into the kingdom of God.” This belief implies that human-administered execution, rather than Christ’s atonement, is necessary for redemption in certain cases—a stance that contradicts mainstream Christian theology, which teaches that only divine grace, not human bloodshed, can atone for sin.
The Doctrine of Blood Atonement
The concept of blood atonement was preached by Young and other early LDS leaders, particularly in the 1850s, as justification for extreme punishment of grievous sins like apostasy and adultery. While the LDS Church today disavows this doctrine, historical records indicate that it had a significant impact on territorial Utah, where extrajudicial killings were sometimes rationalized under religious pretense. This ideology fostered a culture of fear, control, and violence, where church members could believe that killing a sinner was a righteous and even merciful act.
Dehumanization of Women
A few of the men and women who go into the house of the Lord, and receive their endowments, and in the most sacred manner make covenants before the Almighty, go and violate those covenants. Do I have compassion on them? Yes, I do have mercy on them, for there is something in their organization which they do not understand; and there are but few in this congregation who do understand it.
You say, “That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God.” 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. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged.
Brigham Young, LDS Church President, delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, March 16, 1856, Instructions to the Bishops—Men Judged According to Their Knowledge—Organization of the Spirit and Body—Thought and Labor to Be Blended Together. Journal Of Discourses, Volume 3, Discourse 35, Page 247
https://journalofdiscourses.com/3/35
https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/128
Brigham Young’s statement reveals a deeply disturbing view of women. His phrasing, “I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart,” suggests that no emotional attachment, no marital bond, and no human compassion would outweigh his religious duty to execute her for disobedience. This level of detachment and conditional love reinforces the idea that women were seen as subordinate possessions rather than autonomous individuals. It also speaks to the broader culture of control and coercion that permeated polygamous Mormon society.
Culture of Violence in Early Mormonism
This quote fits within a pattern of harsh, militant rhetoric from Brigham Young, whose leadership was marked by authoritarian rule, religious fanaticism, and violent threats against dissenters. It aligns with other infamous statements he made about apostates deserving death, violent retribution for interracial marriage, and the necessity of strict obedience. Whether or not blood atonement was widely enacted, Young’s words created a climate of fear that helped maintain control over the Mormon populace. Other examples of this violent rhetoric which lead to real physical and fatal violence was the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Brigham Young’s statement is a chilling reminder of the dangers of unchecked religious authority and theocratic rule. It demonstrates how divinely sanctioned violence can be used to justify horrific acts, how religious fanaticism can override basic human empathy, and how dogmatic obedience can lead followers to accept ideas that would otherwise be morally reprehensible. While the modern LDS Church has distanced itself from blood atonement and violent rhetoric, the legacy of Young’s teachings continues to raise serious questions about the historical foundations of Mormonism and the role of coercion, fear, and control in its early leadership.
Church Attempts To Rewrite History
The LDS Church defends Brigham Young as “egregiously mischaracterized.” This is yet another example of historical revisionism aimed at making the church’s past more palatable to modern audiences. Rather than engaging honestly with Young’s well-documented record of violent rhetoric, authoritarian rule, and racist and extremist teachings, the church instead portrays any criticism as an unfair attack and dismisses legitimate concerns as “stereotypes.”
This response reveals the church’s priority: controlling the narrative rather than reckoning with history. Instead of openly acknowledging Young’s advocacy for blood atonement, his fiery calls for violence against dissenters, or his role in policies that oppressed women, Indigenous peoples, and Black individuals, the church seeks to sanitize its history to maintain its authority. True historical engagement means wrestling with uncomfortable truths, not dismissing them as mischaracterizations. By refusing to do so, the church demonstrates that it values protecting its image over fostering transparency and accountability.
Share Your History
For those who have experienced the weight of these teachings or struggled with the legacy of Mormon doctrine, sharing personal faith journeys can help expose these harmful ideas and foster greater awareness. If we don’t share our collective history of deconstructing Mormonism, the church will be happy to tell it for us as offended, lazy, and apostate members seeking sin above truth. Consider sharing your story at wasmormon.org to help others navigating similar doubts and realizations.
More reading: