Challenging Mormonism Live in Salt Lake City

Passing Out Literature at the LDS Conference

You're up here to pass out literature at the LDS conference, is that right?

Yes, each conference we bring a group of people up, mainly from the Phoenix area. Numbers depend on how many people we can put together in a short period of time, sometimes like it was this time. But we normally have a group passing out literature and speaking with folks and talk about it.

We do not do anything like obstruct the gates or do any yelling or screaming. We aren't into that kind of thing, that's fine. We're not going to do anything unusual or anything like that. If you want to talk to LDS folks, you've got to go to where they are.

Why Focus Criticism on the LDS Church

A question that people are always asking, and I'm sure you've had this asked many times, why is it that you would come and talk to pass out literature and so forth critical of the LDS faith rather than say, oh, I don't know, the United Methodist Church or a Pentecostal church or some other church that you would disagree with doctrinally?

Well, there are a number of reasons.

First of all, we cannot be omnipresent, which means we can't be ever placed. We will, for example, the Invention of Jehovah's Witnesses. Twice a year you have the opportunity of talking to a large number of LDS people.

The Alpha and Omega Ministries, if I'm the director and subject or want anything against someone who does, I think, though, that I have seen quite often there's a danger in that. It becomes about that one group.

I think my main area of study has been just basically nationally known atheists. So in the past subject, we deal with some sort of balance in how you look at issues to have a number of viewpoints in your mind and be awake and how to be in a light that is negative to norm.

We've tried to do that with one of those we care, and we do have a message to share.

Jim, what are the pamphlets you're passing out this year?

Well, I think you've probably seen them all, Alma. We wanted to get one done on the priesthood, specifically for this conference, but we're going to have to hold off on that for the next conference. But we're mainly going to, again, be in October.

It's so unusual. That sounds like it actually went out much better than tracks that have. I have not heard a whole lot of the subjects as I would never bother to try. And at the same time, I think I'm fair in saying something like that for what it says, but not for what it doesn't say because there's no way to be able to.

Actually, we've actually got all are looking at the.

Difficulty, whatever. And there are some who do, but I have no difficulty with somebody expressing a point of view, saying this is, if I understand correctly, this is what you believe. This is what I see is wrong with what you believe.

And I have no objection to somebody doing that. The problem with all of that sort of thing, though, is where I take exception with you, and perhaps my primary exception that I would take with you in your ministry and your writings and so forth, is that I really do not feel that those who are criticizing the LDS faith very often present arguments that are meritorious.

They're usually arguments that are very significantly flawed by attempting to portray Mormonism as being something which it is not or declaring that Mormons have doctrine which they do not have and then proceeding to attack what is not even LDS doctrine and think that by attacking that and showing arguments against something like that, the blood atonement issue for example, is I think a very worthless kind of approach.

And that's what I have seen in a lot of what you're doing, is frequently rather than discussing a particular issue which I think is legitimate, you're attempting to impose upon Mormons something which they don't believe or something from LDS history which is twisted or distorted in some way.

And then approaching it from that standpoint, I think there's something wrong with that kind of approach.

Blood Atonement, LDS History, and the Confessions of John D. Lee

Well, let me respond to that, Van, if I could. When you need to take a break or something, just make sure I know.

We'll just turn the sound off on you, Jim. We're not going to break until 1 o 'clock. Oh, okay.

Well, I'll respond to that first of all, Van, by saying that, for example, the issue you brought up sort of surprises me in that blood atonement is, I believe, a very valid issue in discussion with Mormonism.

Our tract on the subject represents, and it's unusual, in fact, some Mormons' objection to our presentation of Mormon doctrine. Normally the Mormons very easily or non-validate. They're generally available to non-Mormons as well.

And so they need to be able to check these references out for themselves. So, yeah, we'll emphasize Mormon doctrine.

More specific on this, I have a, I didn't bring it with me, but I have one of your pamphlets, and maybe it's not the one you're passing out, I'm not sure, but it quotes extensively as factual history from a book published in the 19th century, which professes to be the Confessions of John D. Lee.

And in this particular quotation is the allegation that church leaders were here executing people right and left for transgression of church moral standards and things of that sort. And I don't know of a single serious historian, even from the 19th century on to the present, who has placed any stock or taken seriously this purported Confession of John D. Lee, which was published by his attorney after his death back east as a profit venture.

It's something which simply does not correspond with the extensive diaries of John D. Lee and various things, and yet you're circulating something which was produced, which I think is totally without historical foundation, and you're circulating it as being fact.

Well, let me make a paragraph from the Confessions of John D. Lee, Relo Barland, and from that book, a concave statement, and I think Reformation, that is the main point of the argument, and of course that kind of activity is not out of line with what Brigham Young himself was saying.

And his sermons on that subject like that, if only it gives rise, that kind of point again, though, was this is not Christian for anything, because then that would be the method of salvation that God would utilize.

But that's the whole point in the very coming of Jesus Christ. I think this whole area, to me, coming from Documentary History 211, my viewpoint is...

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, and the Meaning of Blood Atonement

That's an interesting point of view, but let me just comment on a couple of things that you have said. Because somebody preaches some strong doctrine, which was preached in 1857, Brigham Young and other leaders spent several months preaching up and down the Wasatch Front that people were committing, that Latter-day Saints were committing sins in light of the fact that they had advanced a long way in the Gospel, that they had committed sins of such a grievous nature that were the law of God, as it was established anciently, in effect, that these people would be worthy of death, and they should actually suffer death.

However, the fact is that Brigham Young never claimed to have executed anybody or to have approved of such a thing. In fact, just a reference, you might want to jot down Journal of Discourses, Volume 11, page 281.

In this, Brigham Young makes this statement. He says, There are some things that Brigham... And this is Brigham speaking about himself. There are some things that Brigham has said he would do, but has never happened to do them.

And this is not all. He prays fervently to his Father and God that he may never be brought into circumstances to be obliged to shed human blood. He never has yet been brought into such a position. I mean, there's this one reference by Brigham Young, the fact that he is preaching strong doctrine, which indeed he did during that particular year.

Throughout LDS history, LDS leaders who were contemporaries of Brigham Young have consistently denied that the Church ever took any position of enacting these laws that were in force in ancient Israel.

And the Javelin sermon that you make reference to of Brigham Young's, of course, is a sermon that was based directly upon an Old Testament passage. And not only that, may I interject that that sermon there concludes, Brigham Young concluded that sermon by saying that that law was not in effect because the laws of the land forbade that.

Well, that's the point. I'm glad you brought it up because that was exactly what I was going to say. The whole point of objecting to this is to point out the fact that if the Mormon Church had the opportunity as divine laws by the Mormon hierarchy, and not just Brigham Young, I mean, I made reference to Joseph Steeling Smith's Doctrine of Salvation, Volume 1, pages 130 with that.

If the Mormon Church were, these laws would be reinstituted. And I would assume the same thing would happen with quitting and being scriptural without any interference. The whole point, again, is not did Brigham Young go out and put a javelin through somebody that Brigham Young could sell to the King of God.

But that is not Christian doctrine. And there's not one shred of evidence for it. Not only that, but it's the complete lies of Jesus Christ. The point is not, well, Brigham Young was a nicer guy than that, and he said he was glad he did it.

If something like that occurred, and they had their blood shed, if that shed blood because it's known for their sins, that's the whole point.

Jim, I think we've passed on from the point that Van was making to a new point. Van's original complaint was that, you quote from Confessions of John D. Lee, that here we have, here's an execution taking place by the Church, Robin Sanderson executed by the LDS Church.

And we can say that that is spurious, that's false, that never happened.

Well, my point in saying that was relevant to what Bruce R. McConkie said on page 92 of Mormon Doctrine. He said, there is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement and dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence, whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such fact that either existed or was said expect the Church to deny that any such thing ever occurred.

And you may think that particular incident is spurious, but I think, especially in light of what even continues to go on today, to Brigham Young's atonement, Adam-God, plural marriages, it's very easy to see that this kind of doctrine brought about this kind of activity.

And for one instance, not even one thing from which leading the incident. And it's only in response to what McConkie said, and the main point of the tract is, no, blood atonement is not biblical.

And that's the whole... You know, that might be the whole point of it in your mind, but I think it is a significant thing that people, you know, one of my complaints is that people like yourself and others circulate material as being accurate history, which no serious historians accept as being accurate history.

Well, wait a minute.

I mean, you all circulate the Book of Mormon as accurate history, and I don't know of any non-Mormon historians who think it's accurate history either. But I'm not saying, I'm not coming on here and complaining about that and saying that, you know, this is a problem that I have with Van Hale.

You know, we could, you know, incidents and things are accurate history, and obviously I don't in this situation as well.

Jim, so you would say that you would accept the account of Rosmos Anderson as a principle of faith, that you have faith, that that occurred?

No, faith, of course, is something that I don't even think the word would apply in this situation. But it applies in the Book of Mormon.

Excuse me? But it applies in the Book of Mormon. We have faith that the Book of Mormon is an accurate document. Right, I understand that.

But I don't have any faith in John D. Lee. What I'm saying is that there are many other books, and of course, again, the Church, that's wonderful, but it lies on both sides. And it was in response to Bruce Albuquerque saying, there's not the slightest inference, no.

And when you look back, it's really strange. You've got the Mount Meadows Massacre occurring. I mean, it's strange, all this is happening back then. And I'm sure that if the historical records were accurate enough, we could find all sorts of instances.

There's a very simple reason that in the state you all live in, Southern Utah, people do tend to disappear.

Well, I would certainly disagree with that. I don't find Brigham Young ever authorizing anyone to take anybody's life. Let me just read a statement to you. This is from an official declaration of December 12, 1889, published by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve of the Church.

And of course, at this time, Wilford Woodruff was president, who was an apostle throughout the entire lifetime of Brigham Young, or his entire administration. George Q. Cannon, Joseph S. Smith were all contemporaries of Brigham Young and lived throughout this time period.

Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young Jr., and so on. These are all men who are addressing themselves to this particular issue. And you don't like McConkie's suggestion that there are no instances of this.

But let me read this official declaration to you. And I think this, at least as far as I'm concerned, carries far more weight than the unsupportable allegation in this spurious Confessions of John D. Lee, that, as I indicate, no serious historian has taken seriously.

They state this. In consequence of gross misrepresentations of doctrines, aims, and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church, which have recently been revived for political purposes, I'm going to skip a little bit, we solemnly make the following declarations, namely, that this Church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost abhorrence, that we regard the killing of a human being except in conformity with the civil law as a capital crime which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the land.

Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course there has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided, and now reside in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly hostile to the Mormon faith and people, even those who have made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods and to render them plausible by calling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, have suffered no opportunity to escape the vilifying and blackening of the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day without receiving the slightest personal injury.

And they go on just to state that they denounce these whole things as being fabrications. These are individuals who knew Brigham Young's teaching, who were supportive of his point of view, and they are expressing their point of view that the idea of instituting this idea of executing apostates and things of that sort are fabrications, and I think a point which very substantially supports that idea is that from the very beginning of the settlement of the Salt Lake Valley, there were those who were very, very hostile to Brigham Young and church leaders, and he published their views and spoke them freely here in the valley, and lived among the Latter-day Saints for years and years and did not end up dead.

Well, two things in response to that. First of all, the church also is very manifesto, and the cessation of polygamy, living in polygamy, and we know that even in the Mexico deal and the whole nine yards at that point, the point again is, yeah, sure, that's going to be said, but when one reads, for example, and I know that the quote from one of those nasty people, negligent in marking the exact reference other than the eternal discourse, says, I can refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously chosen hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance, and taken and their blood spilled on the ground by the smoking incense of the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up, conquers death, hell, and the grave.

I have known a great many men who have left this church for whom there is no chance. If their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle of being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

And I would take that, and that's the end of the quote there, but I would take that to mean that in the future, when the laws of God, as viewed by Mormonism, have atonement, including the shedding of blood, human blood, for the atonement of sin, we'll go on to say, this is loving our neighbor as ourselves, we need salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth, in order that he may be saved.

Still, understand the principle of acquiring the shedding of blood, excise, fide, and arrest, until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that exaltation in time. A point that I've been trying to make, and it's not that it is a law of God, that is due to plenty of instances where this has occurred.

Now, obviously, I would assume that the law of capital punishment has anything to do with it. The idea that man's blood can atone for his sin is completely unbiblical, and that's the point we're trying to bring out.

The massive deficiency in the doctrine of the atonement of Christ, as represented by Mormon doctrine, not only relevant to the idea that sacrifices are going to be reinstituted, in the role of the priest, together, I think, very clearly, that's not biblical.

That is unbiblical. The blood of Jesus Christ, alone, can shed atonement for anything. Anything like, has nothing to do with the idea of atonement,.

Either in the Old or the New Testament. Okay, and I would, of course, disagree with you. I think you're the one who's on the wrong side of the argument, the biblical argument, or the biblical teaching on this subject.

As we turn to the Old Testament, for example, the idea is clearly taught in the Old Testament, that sin is taken away by the shedding of blood. I'm looking at Leviticus 17, 11. I assume that you would not take exception with that.

Well, certainly not. Obviously, you have animal sacrifice in the Old Testament. You have to realize that you must make sacrifices, and the Old Testament system was a shadow of things to come, for that sacrifice cannot take away.

The fact that God applied to them the merits of Christ, God does the one ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Even within the Old Testament, blood can atone for his sin. The covering of the sin was never presented.

The New Testament, does the New Testament present, and you and I have spoken about this before, Van, and I don't think that...

Of course, I disagree with you, and I disagree for these several reasons. First of all, in the Old Testament, the idea is clearly presented that the shedding of blood is for the purpose of the taking away of sin.

And I was making reference to Leviticus 17, 11, which maybe I ought to read that. Maybe I don't need to. I think everybody recognizes that that concept is in the Old Testament. And then secondly, the situation we find in the Old Testament is that there are certain sins that a person can commit that the shedding of animal blood is sufficient.

However, there are sins that I think everybody is well aware of outlined in the Old Testament, and I can refer to these if need be, that there are sins that put a person beyond the sacrifice of the blood of animals, and the person's own blood is to be shed in respect to certain serious sins.

Such as? Well, for example, quite a number of them are listed, but you have the sin, of course, of murder. You have adultery.

Let's make sure that we understand what you're saying. You're saying the Old Testament teaches that a murderer, by being killed, by being stoned normally, which would hardly be a massive shedding of blood sacrificially, which is the context in which Mormon, atoning for his sin, or was he simply being killed and taken out of the way?

I don't recall the exact verse. It would take me a few minutes to find it.

I believe that it's in Leviticus, but it says that the land is polluted by the murderers in the land, and that the land can be cleansed by the shedding of the blood of the murderers.

Now, again, I've got to take you back to what you're saying, and comparing what you're saying with what the Mormon... The Old Testament presents the idea, the idea that God very clearly said that the evil people in the land, and the land was polluted, and...

All right, so my answer to that would be that I don't believe that... See, what you're saying is that that atonement replaced Christ. And in the Mormon doctrine, the principle of blood atonement does not in any way overtake the blood of Christ.

It's the blood of Christ that brings men back, that atones for all sin, brings them back into the presence of God. And I think we get on to a mistaken concept when you try to assume that the LDS teaching was apart from Jesus Christ.

Well, I'm not saying that it was apart from Jesus Christ, as one of your own prophets expressed, may commit certain grievous sins according to his light and knowledge that will place him beyond the reach of the eternal blood of Christ, rather than beyond his own life, than he says on page 135.

Basically the same thing. Now, since we're talking about power and being beyond the power, you know, I would agree with you that I'm not trying to say that Mormonism says that you're pointing out, and I think it's very clear from Mormon...

...grievous sins that you can carry inference of, the blood is not powerful enough to atone for those. And even Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, I think it's 454, said,. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins of the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.

It's a mistaken concept. I'm not saying that there is no doctrine of atonement in Mormonism. I'm saying it's just completely wrong. I'm not trying to say that you, on certain sins, cannot atone for. If a person's blood can atone for those sins, you are saying, in effect, that that man's sinful blood has a wider application than the very blood of Jesus Christ.

You see, that's the interpretation that you would like to place upon that, but of course you have no church leader who is suggesting that. I mean, that's your clever twisting of the idea. Well, what did Joseph Joseph Smith say?

Well, let me just throw in a couple of ideas here. I think the point that's being made, and whether you agree with Brigham Young's point of view on the Scriptures or not, I mean, it's one thing for you to have one opinion that disagrees with Brigham Young or Joseph Fielding Smith.

That's fine. But the fact is that there is biblical support and biblical passages that are being referred to by Brigham Young and, of course, by Joseph Fielding Smith, in which they are pointing out that there are certain sins and there's biblical passages that seem to support this, that put a man beyond the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Not the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

That's not what Alma said. Alma said the sacrifice of animals. There's nothing biblically that says beyond the sacrifice of Christ. For the law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming, not the realities themselves.

For this reason, it can never, by the same sacrifices, repeat endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

I may have lost you there, Jim. You said I said the sacrifice of animals? That's how I understood it, yeah. Okay, you must have misunderstood me wrong.

Well, the whole context of Leviticus, obviously, when Van says the sacrifice of Christ, we have now taken it completely out of the context of Leviticus and have taken it into a New Testament situation.

And that's why I began reading to you there, Hebrews chapter 10, where the writer continues to say, If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.

For an animal reminder of sin, the whole idea of the atonement is not simply blood being shed. It is a perfect life that is not condemned under the curse of God being given. And if a human being who is condemned under the curse of God gives his life, that is not an atonement.

It is not a covering. It has no saving efficacy in it whatsoever. That's the whole point of the book of Hebrews.

I think verse 26 says, For there is no longer any sacrifice that will take away sins if we purposely go on sinning after the truth has been made known to us. So here is an example in Hebrews of a situation under which the author of Hebrews is indicating that it is possible for a person to commit sin that puts him beyond the sacrifice for sin provided for by Christ.

Okay, that's why I disagree with you. And then I would say from that point that those who reject prod under their feet, the sacrifice of God, have to bring forth some fruit meet for repentance. And I would really question the idea if you were to have asked Brigham Young, does this man giving his life really pay for his sin?

Does that mean he no longer needs a Savior for that sin? I think Brigham Young would have said, No, that's absurd. But the fact that the man has shed his blood for certain grievous sins is an indication of bringing fruit meet for repentance.

Well, again, I would say that first of all, relevant to the context of what the early church leaders were saying, we've read the quote so many times now. They were talking about atonement, atonement by their own blood.

We've mentioned a number of the references.

And you've given the Joseph Fielding Smith quote, and he keeps saying, for that man to atone as far as is possible, indicating that he really can't atone for his sins. All he can do is bring forth a certain point and show his repentance and his reliance on Christ.

And yet he then goes on to say that his blood must be shed to atone, to show that he's repentant? No, to atone for his sins. And relevant to the other thing that was brought up in Hebrews 10, verse 28, I think you missed the point of what he's saying there.

The author of Hebrews is saying there, in Hebrews, he's not talking about the sacrifices, that if you know that Christ has made sacrifices for sins and attempt to go back to your old ways, attempt to go back to the coming up here or Deuteronomy where no longer sacrifices for sins, you cannot say, well, hey, I offered the right sacrifices.

No way. There is no one sacrifice that made by Jesus Christ. And that again brings me back to what I said just a second ago. And that is the whole idea of what is the atonement cleanses from any sins at all.

And I think if we understand, you know, Jesus' sinlessness, the fact that he was the perfect sacrifice, the Old Testament's teaching that the sacrifice must be completely non-blemished, it must be perfect as pointing to, then we realize the complete absurdity of saying that there can be any type of atonement by a blemished person, by a sinful individual.

And you can say that Joseph Feeling Smith or Brigham Young were not saying that shedding of blood provides an atonement for that man's shedding of blood, but they said it directly out in English words.

We can say, well, they didn't really mean that. Okay, then we're at a loggerhead and that's it. We can just go on to something else. But if one reads what they said, they directly said that that is an atonement for sin.

And the people I've talked to, you know, the people who have left messages on our phone machines in Las Vegas and in Phoenix take it very deeply, seriously. At least they understand it that way, and I've talked to many an LDS person outside the temple that has understood it in the exact same way.

If you take a different viewpoint, and Alma, I know that you do take a different viewpoint, and Suzanne and Alma at the same time.

There are a lot of Latter-day Saints who would see you quote a statement from Brigham Young and assume that you have interpreted him correctly and would attempt perhaps to try and defend that kind of a position.

But what I'm saying, let me just kind of summarize what I'm suggesting in this whole point, and then maybe we can go on to something else if you want to. But what I'm saying is, first of all, the concept that Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others were presenting was not, it was not that the shedding of a sinful, blemished man's blood is more efficacious, more powerful, and more significant than the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

And the fact that they have used the word atonement there is unfortunate because it has led you to a, I suppose, a sincere misunderstanding of what they're saying. But they're not saying what you keep claiming that they're saying.

They're not saying the blood of sinful man is more potent and more powerful than the blood of Jesus Christ. They're simply saying that a person can commit sin, certain sins, which put that person beyond the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

And of course, as I have, you know, I did cite this passage from Hebrews chapter 10, verse 26, which seems very clearly to be suggesting that. You also have the idea of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, both of which are mentioned by Joseph Smith and by Brigham Young and by other leaders as tying into this.

They're saying that beyond, that a person can commit a sin that puts them beyond simply repenting and being forgiven based upon the atoning sacrifice of the blood of Christ. And I think that is something for which there is biblical support, regardless of your point of view on it.

Let me summarize what I was saying, too. And that is that, first of all, in reference to the unpardonable sin, that the passage of Matthew makes it very clear there is no forgiveness for that whatsoever.

Atonement or no atonement. I would just simply wrap up by what Sir Brigham Young himself said. An offering upon an altar cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man himself. And the point that, I'm not exactly sure how we got to it, but the track makes and the point that we're making relative to blood of the atonement of Jesus, it is not limited in its scope.

It cannot be anything. It is secondary. To add anything to the compulsion is exactly how I see, for example, the entire doctrine of priesthood within Mormonism.

Well, it's going off in a different direction. I have certain things in mind that I would like to address myself to and have you address yourself to. And I think that you've made your point, and my point is just simply that I think you misunderstand, I hope not purposely, but I think you misunderstand what Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith are trying to say.

And I object to your twisting that and suggesting that they were advocating that a sinful person's blood is more efficacious than the blood of Christ.

Well, Ben, I hope you don't mind when I say I feel you're twisting it as well, if that's what you're saying.

You have not cited anything from any of them suggesting that. I mean, that's your imposition of your point of view. You're saying this is what they must have believed, given your particular point of reference.

But they're coming from a different point of reference, in which they see that it's possible, and they're drawing their material on this from biblical passages, that it is possible for a person to commit sin for which a turtle dove can cover that sin.

It's also possible for a person to commit a sin for which nothing will cover that except for the shedding of the blood of that individual himself. Now, one final item I would just kind of like to throw into this, and I think it would be extremely worth your while to get a copy of this and maybe alter your writing to conform with this particular item.

And this is a letter by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, written October 18, 1978, to Mr. Thomas B. McAfee of the Utah Law Review, the University of Utah. And President Kimball had received a letter from Thomas McAfee of the Utah Law Review, requesting some information for inclusion in their Utah Law Review regarding blood atonement and capital punishment.

And President Kimball commissioned Bruce R. McConkie to write a letter on this, which runs for about four pages, and I'll just read a little excerpt from it to give you a feeling of what he has to say on the subject, because I'm not convinced that you're attempting to say, well, I've talked to Mormons who believe this and that and the other, therefore, I understood what they said, and I am therefore authorized, based upon that, to express what Mormon doctrine is, and that Van Hale and Alma Allred don't represent Mormon doctrine.

But I would say that this particular letter written by Bruce R. McConkie, under the direction of President Kimball, to state to the Utah Law Review the Church's position on blood atonement, I think conforms with what Alma and I are suggesting to you, and it goes against what you are saying Mormons believe.

At any rate, you might want to pick this up. I don't have a reference on it immediately where it's published, but it has been published in Dialogue magazine, and I imagine probably also in the Utah Law Review.

Anyway, McConkie makes this statement. He says, In reply to your letter of September 20, 1978, to President Spencer W. Kimball of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in which you asked some questions about the so-called doctrine of blood atonement, I have been asked by President Kimball and by the First Presidency to respond to your inquiries.

You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early church leaders have said and written about this doctrine, and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the Church today.

If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is yes. If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is no.