|
In Mormonism, blood atonement was a controversial doctrine which taught that some crimes such as murder are so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Thus, to atone for these sins the perpetrators must have their blood shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering. The concept was originally taught by Brigham Young, though it appears to be an expansion of the previous teachings of Joseph Smith This doctrine is no longer accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The doctrine originated during the Mormon Reformation, when Brigham Young governed the Utah Territory as a near-theocracy. Young and the other members of his First Presidency taught that the doctrine was ideally to be a voluntary choice by the sinner, carried out with love and compassion. Young considered it more charitable to sacrifice a life than to see them endure eternal torment in the afterlife. In a full Mormon theocracy, the practice would be implemented by the state as a penal measure. The blood atonement doctrine was the impetus behind laws in the territory and state of Utah allowing capital punishment by firing squad or decapitation. Though people in Utah were executed by firing squad for capital crimes under the assumption that this would aid their salvation, there is no clear evidence that Young or other top theocratic Mormon leaders enforced blood atonement for apostasy or non-capital crimes like miscegenation. There is, however, some evidence that the doctrine was enforced a few times at the local church level without regard to secular judicial procedure. The rhetoric of blood atonement may have contributed to a culture of violence leading to the Mountain Meadows massacre. Blood atonement remains an important doctrine within Mormon fundamentalism.〔(FLDS Church Holds Fast to Doctrine of Blood Atonement )〕 Within mainstream Mormonism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has informally opined, since 1978, that the doctrine is no longer in force. LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie, claiming to reflect the view of church leadership, wrote in 1978 that while he still believed that certain sins are beyond the atoning power of the blood of Christ, the doctrine of blood atonement is only applicable in a theocracy.〔(Official LDS letter repudiating blood atonement )〕 Nevertheless, given its long history, the doctrine still plays a role in some Utah death penalty trials.〔Stack, Peggy Fletcher, ''Concept of Blood Atonement Survives in Utah Despite Repudiation'', Salt Lake Tribune November 5, 1994 notes that "In the past decade, potential jurors in every Utah capital homicide were asked whether they believed in the Mormon concept of 'blood atonement.'" In 1994, when the defense in the trial of James Edward Wood alleged that a local church leader had "talked to Wood about shedding his own blood", the LDS First Presidency submitted a document to the court that denied the church's acceptance and practice of such a doctrine, and included the 1978 repudiation. Stack, Peggy Fletcher, 1994. The article also notes that Arthur Gary Bishop, a convicted serial killer, was told by a top church leader that "blood atonement ended with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ."〕 ==Historical and doctrinal background== Mormonism was in its early days a Restorationist faith, and leaders such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young frequently discussed efforts to re-introduce social, legal, and religious practices described in the Bible, such as temple building, polygamy, and a patriarchal, theocratic governing structure. The term "blood atonement" does not appear in Mormon scripture. However, in the Book of Mormon there are verses clearly detailing that "the law of Moses" requires capital punishment for the crime of murder.〔Alma 34:11-17: "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 just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal."〕 The concept of blood atonement for adultery was less clearly articulated in LDS scripture. In Doctrine and Covenants 132, Joseph Smith wrote that people who break the "New and Everlasting Covenant" (Celestial marriage) would be "destroyed in the flesh" and be punished until they received their exaltation at the Last Judgment.〔(Doctrine and Covenants 132 ), verses 26 and 27: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."〕 The requirement of bloodshed for capital crimes grew into the idea that salvation would be blocked unless this penalty was adhered to, as the "law" would remain "unfulfilled." The belief of the necessity of spilled blood and death to make restitution for adultery and murder was aided by a generally favorable view toward capital punishment, the idea that spilled blood "cries out" for retribution, the "blood for blood" doctrine that says crimes of bloodshed should be punished by the spilling of blood, and the concept that repentance requires restitution. Although the scriptures in Alma 34 of the Book of Mormon speak of the "requirement" in terms of a legal obligation, Brigham Young described blood atonement-worthy crimes as actually negating the salvation offered by Jesus, stating that a sinner's crimes "will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires."〔Journal of Discourses Vol. 4, p. 215-221〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Blood atonement」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|