Scheduled Utah firing squad executions part of Mormon blood ritual. True or False?

[astro]

This sounds likes a somewhat specious claim. Is it true? Death Penalty Information Center says it is and Mormon Religion Professor says not.
From Salon - Utah prepares for firing-squad executions
[sub]

Utah prepares for firing-squad executions

May 22, 2003 | SALT LAKE CITY (AP) – The only state that dispatches condemned inmates by firing squad is assembling gunmen for back-to-back executions next month.

The nation’s last execution by firing squad was in 1996. Exercising their right under Utah law, serial killer Roberto Arguelles and Troy Michael Kell, a white supremacist who stabbed a fellow inmate to death, have chosen the firing squad over lethal injection and are set to die at 12:01 a.m. on June 27 and 28, respectively. However, Kell filed an appeal last week that will probably halt his execution.

Of the 850 inmates put to death in the United States since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976, two have died by firing squad, both in Utah: Gary Gilmore in 1977 became the first person executed in the United States after the court’s ruling, and John Albert Taylor was put to death 19 years later. Since 1977, Utah has executed four other killers, all by injection. Anti-death penalty forces are protesting, arguing that the firing squad amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. And the prison is bracing for large crowds of protesters.

Utah’s use of firing squads predates statehood in 1896 and is a remnant of the early Mormon belief that bloodshed is a required punishment for taking a life, said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which says it is neutral about the death penalty but critical of its application.

“Certainly no other state has continued its use or allowed people to choose it. It’s the one thing that stands out,” Dieter said. “It’s part of the history, so there’s a reluctance to change.”

The notion that murder must be atoned for in blood has never been part of official church doctrine, and the Mormon church has not taken a formal position on execution methods, said Robert Millet, Brigham Young University religion professor.

The Utah Corrections Department is recruiting law enforcement officers for two five-person firing squads, asking the police departments in the communities where the crimes were committed to nominate volunteers. The officers’ identities will not be released, and participants will be barred from talking publicly about the experience. A hood will be put over the condemned man’s head and a target will be pinned over his heart. The executioners will fire simultaneously from gun portals in a separate room at the inmate, seated in a chair about 30 feet away.

One of the five rifles will contain a blank so that no one will know who fired the fatal shots.

[/sub]

[Monty]

I would go with:

(a) Death Penalty Information Center has a bias on the issue.

(b) The professor is imparting factual information.

&

© You posted an entire copyrighted article.

[jjimm]

I did a quick google, and the majority of citations for this practice attribute the “blood atonement” theory to unnamed “experts”. Most sites with this information appear to have an agenda or to be personal homepages. I did, however, find one activist site that attributes the practice to Brigham Young - this is allegedly from the New York Times, though the misspelling of the word “prophet” makes me rather suspicious:

In an early radical phase, Utah’s Mormon settlers believed that the
sin of murder could only be atoned by shedding the murderer’s
blood. “There are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or
turtle doves cannot remit,” Brigham Young, a Mormon profit, told
his pioneering flock here in 1856. “But they must be atoned by the
blood of man.” For over 30 years, this belief in blood atonement,
and the practice of polygamy, blocked accommodation between Utah’s
Mormon “Kingdom” and Washington. In 1890, the church formally
disavowed polygamy and blood atonement.

So, did Young say that, and if he did, is it really the cause of this practice? I do, of course, defer to Monty’s obvious knowledge on the matter, and my obvious ignorance.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Monty, © is demonstrably false – follow the link. (Although it does quote the bulk of the article, which is probably a no-no).
(a) is demonstrably true – but is it relevant?
(b) is, I guess, true – but I wonder if it’s only half the point.

Is it true that there’s a belief amongst lots of Mormons (more than amongst the population of the US as a whole) that a blood crime can only be atoned for in blood? I’ve understood this to be true for a long time, and I’ve never heard an alternate explanation of the existence of the use of firing squads in Utah. If it’s not true, do you know why firing squads are still in use in Utah?

Daniel

[CarnalK]

From the quote: "One of the five rifles will contain a blank so that no one will know who fired the fatal shots. "

I wonder why they keep up this sham when everyone who’s ever fired a gun more than once can tell the difference whether they’re firing blanks or real shells. I guess it soothes some timid souls.

It’s pretty weak trying to tie this into some Mormon value; blood for murder would hardly be unique to Mormons even if true. The State of Utah (not the Mormon church) has the death penalty and there is an “archaic” method set as an option (apparently at the discretion of the condemned), who cares. Dead is dead if you ask me.

It seems to me the Mormon connection was only brought up to shore up some support from the anti-religion/Mormon crowd on the death penalty issue. Like I said, weak.

[Captain_Amazing]

I’ll just point out that death by firing squad is also optional in Idaho, and Oklahoma law mandates a firing squad in the event that both lethal injection and electocution are found unconstitutional. Firing squads are also used in other countries, and have been used by the US military as a method of execution, esp. in wartime. So Utah isn’t unique in that regard.

[jjimm]

Hmmm… this is from a book called “The Unforgiven - Utah’s Executed men” that does seem to have a lot of citations to back up the assertion.

Mormon leaders believed that Jesus’ blood did not forgive murderers, who could personally “atone” for their sin only by offering their own blood. Brigham Young, for example, maintained: "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sin; whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world."3 Young’s counselor Jedediah M. Grant agreed: "I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President 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."4 On another occasion he argued, "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…before God as an atonement for your sins…"5

It goes on to say that the firing squad was instated in 1888 to replace beheading. However:

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote [in 1978]: “We do not believe that it is necessary for men in this day to shed their own blood to receive a remission of sins. This is said with a full awareness of what I and others have written and said on this subject in times past.” He went on to say that the law of blood atonement “has not been given to the church at anytime in this dispensation. It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether a member or a nonmember of the Church… There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins.” [snip] …the shedding of man’s blood in legal executions as a figurative expression which means the taking of life.

(my emphasis) If this book is valid, then it seems that the reasons may be rooted in the social practices of early LDS, but are irrelevant today. It also doesn’t explain why other states can mandate the firing squad.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Captain, interesting – I thought I remembered reading that only Utah has execution by firing squad. I may have read that fifteen years ago, though, so my memory certainly may be faulty.

According to a site that looks well-researched and pro-LDS, Idaho is second only to Utah in terms of Mormon population, percentagewise.

As for Oklahoma, it looks to me as if they’re trying to prevent lethal injection from being ruled cruel and unusual. “We can’t do lethal injection? Fine – then we’ll fry them. We can’t fry them? Fine – then we’ll shoot them. Sure you want to declare the injection cruel & unusual?” That’s speculation on my part, but it’s what it looks like to me.

I have nothing against or for Mormonism, and I have nothing against or for firing squads as a method of execution – especially not when the condemned may opt out of it as a method. So I’m not asking this question because I believe a connection between firing squads and Mormonism will show Mormons to be a bunch of bloodthirsty cultists or similar nonsense.

I’m just genuinely curious: is this a coincidence, or is there some sort of belief that many Mormons hold regarding the usefulness of spilling blood as a means of atoning for violent crimes?

If there’s something else going on – if Utah and Idaho have a nonreligious tradition of shooting outlaws or something, a tradition not shared by Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, etc. – I’d be interested in hearing that too.

Daniel

[pencilpusher]

I think all states should have the firing squad as an option. Kinda like going to McDonalds and being asked if you want your burger with or without cheese. We Americans LOVE choices!!

[pepperlandgirl]

Is it true that there’s a belief amongst lots of Mormons (more than amongst the population of the US as a whole) that a blood crime can only be atoned for in blood? I’ve understood this to be true for a long time, and I’ve never heard an alternate explanation of the existence of the use of firing squads in Utah. If it’s not true, do you know why firing squads are still in use in Utah?

Interestingly enough, in Utah it is commonly accepted that a blood crime can only be atoned for in blood. I heard in church, in seminary and discussions. However, when I mentioned it in front Mormons here in So Cal, all of them said they had never, ever heard that at all.

I also heard that Gilmore chose the firing squad, not due to any religious convictions, but because he wanted to embarass the state of Utah. No cites for that…just something a teacher told me once…

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by pepperlandgirl *
**Interestingly enough, in Utah it is commonly accepted that a blood crime can only be atoned for in blood. I heard in church, in seminary and discussions. However, when I mentioned it in front Mormons here in So Cal, all of them said they had never, ever heard that at all. **

That is interesting. Especially that you heard it in a religious environment. It sound to me as if this isn’t official church doctrine (according to Monty and to the prof in the article); was it church officials who said this?

I wonder if it’s something that the church has officially repudiated, but which constitutes almost folklore amongst most members of the religions, perhaps similar to some of the Madonna-pseudo-worship* you find amongst lots of Catholics.

Daniel

• I know it’s not exactly worship, but I don’t know what the technical term is for it. And I think it’s a great thing in any case.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by pepperlandgirl *
Interestingly enough, in Utah it is commonly accepted that a blood crime can only be atoned for in blood. I heard in church, in seminary and discussions.

Did you hear that in a Mormon church?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I wonder if Joseph Smith was speaking metaphorically in support of a death penalty and “the shedding of blood” part got taken too literally by some.

It doesn’t appear that Smith sttempted to make it a formal part of LDS doctrine, so it may have been a personal opinion of his own rather than one of the revealed truths.

In either case, it doesn’t seem to be a genuine part of the LDS church anymore, at least not in any official capacity. This sounds like just another anti-Mormon smear/half-truth to me.

[emarkp]

Sigh, another hit piece on Mormons from Salon (compare this piece of crap from a few months ago–my summary: anti-Mormon screed). This really is getting old. I was all ready to subscribe to Salon (even though they’re much more liberal than I’d like) until that article. I won’t knowingly subsidize misinformation presented as news.

Let’s check the quotes in the article:

Anti-death penalty forces are protesting, arguing that the firing squad amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. And the prison is bracing for large crowds of protesters.

Utah’s use of firing squads predates statehood in 1896 and is a remnant of the early Mormon belief that bloodshed is a required punishment for taking a life, said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which says it is neutral about the death penalty but critical of its application.

“Certainly no other state has continued its use or allowed people to choose it. It’s the one thing that stands out,” Dieter said. “It’s part of the history, so there’s a reluctance to change.”

This from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ which is a a decidedly anti-death-penalty organization, and makes no claims to expertise WRT Mormon doctrine or history.

Then the response from a Brigham Young University professor:

The notion that murder must be atoned for in blood has never been part of official church doctrine, and the Mormon church has not taken a formal position on execution methods

You’ll pardon me if I believe the professor over the anti-death-penalty group.
But if that’s not enough, I’ve done a bit of research on “blood atonement” (side note: Diogenes Joseph Smith didn’t say a word about the issue, as far as I’ve read). It’s pretty well summed up in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

[quote]
Blood Atonement
The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior’s sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ.

Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer’s blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as “blood Atonement.” Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.

Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced “blood Atonement,” by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement-which was based on voluntary submission by an offender-into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.

Bibliography[ul] [li]McConkie, Bruce R. “Blood Atonement Doctrine.” In Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, 1966.[]Penrose, Charles W. Blood Atonement, As Taught by Leading Elders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, 1884. []Peterson, Paul H. “The Mormon Reformation,” pp. 176-99. Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University, 1981.Smith, Joseph Fielding. “The Doctrine of Blood Atonement.” In Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 1, pp. 180-91. Salt Lake City, 1957.LOWELL M. SNOW [/ul] [/li][/quote]

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Oops, sorry emarkp. I confused Brigham Young with Joseph Smith. I should read more closely. In any case I still agree that it sounds like anti-Mormon propaganda more than anything else.

[emarkp]

No big deal Diogenes. It’s funny, JS was responsible for most LDS doctrine, but BY seems to have been more responsible for more LDS culture and folk doctrine. The trek west also contributed a lot. I think in general more people are for the death penalty in the intermountain west than elsewhere, and the most visible collection of LDS (Utah and Idaho) are in the intermountain west.

We LDS in CA are frequently shocked by Utah culture. And lamentably LDS seminary is often full of folk doctrine rather than official LDS teachings.

[shelbo]

*Originally posted by CarnalK *
**From the quote: "One of the five rifles will contain a blank so that no one will know who fired the fatal shots. "

I wonder why they keep up this sham when everyone who’s ever fired a gun more than once can tell the difference whether they’re firing blanks or real shells. **

The only ones that will ever know will be the riflemen themselves. And even those that know they fired a real bullet will not know which of their peers had the blank. Only the one that had the blank will know for sure that each of the others shot real bullets.

[pepperlandgirl]

We LDS in CA are frequently shocked by Utah culture. And lamentably LDS seminary is often full of folk doctrine rather than official LDS teachings.

Excellent point re: seminary. I was quite fond of my seminary teachers, but they can blow smoke like nobody’s business.

And the LDS in Utah are frequently scandalized by the CA culture.

Did you hear that in a Mormon church?

Sorry, thought it was clear from the context of my post that it was indeed the Mormon church.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

So, to recap:

1. The use of firing squads as a means for a murderer to shed their blood in atonement does stem from the religious beliefs of some Mormons.
2. It is not a part of official church doctrine.
3. This belief is more common amongst Mormons in Utah and Idaho than amongst Mormons in California.
4. It’s inaccurate and kind of offensive to call it a “Mormon Blood Ritual.”

Everyone agree?
Daniel

[emarkp]

No on (1). Capital punishment likely does stem from that belief. But use of firing squad doesn’t IMO.