The Latter-day Saint doctrine of continuing revelation opens the door to both divine guidance and mortal limitation. Few topics expose that tension like the historical teaching of “blood atonement”—a controversial idea espoused by some early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young. But rather than disprove the divine calling of prophets, these moments offer a chance to reflect on how God works through flawed men, just as He always has.

What Was Blood Atonement?

Blood atonement was a speculative teaching (and never put into practice), primarily advanced by Brigham Young in the mid-19th century, suggesting that for certain grievous sins, the sinner’s own blood might be required to reconcile with God—particularly when church or civil justice fell short. While not a formal doctrine of the Church, it was referenced in fiery sermons during a volatile frontier era shaped by violence, honor codes, and intense persecution.

But where did this idea come from? Was it biblical, cultural, or both?

• Culturally, Brigham Young was influenced by an era of duels, vigilante justice, and deep Southern and frontier values. His family had ties to New York and Vermont, but Utah’s early leadership attracted converts from the American South and Britain, where strong retributive ideas about justice were common.
• Biblically, Old Testament laws did command capital punishment for murder and apostasy (Leviticus 20; Deuteronomy 13). However, Christ’s gospel introduced a new ethic of mercy, repentance, and atonement through His own sacrifice.

Brigham likely saw blood atonement as a continuation of biblical justice under the restored priesthood authority. But over time, later Church leaders clarified that the only atoning blood that saves is Jesus Christ’s (see Alma 34:8–10, D&C 18:11).

Did This Contradict True Revelation?

Critics argue that such teachings disqualify Latter-day prophets from divine authority. But this assumes a standard for prophets that even the Bible doesn’t uphold.

• Jonah rejected God’s mercy on Nineveh.
• Peter denied Christ and later showed prejudice against Gentiles.
• Moses struck the rock in defiance of God.
• Paul and Barnabas had a falling out so intense that they parted ways (Acts 15:39).

Each of these men was called of God. Yet each taught, acted, or led imperfectly at times. God’s work didn’t end because of their flaws. Instead, it progressed—line upon line, often correcting course.

The Latter-day Saint understanding of revelation fits this pattern. Prophets are not infallible. They are stewards of divine authority, called to speak God’s will, but still growing, still learning, and still shaped by their environment. Revelation is both divine and mortal, transcendent and human.

A Double Standard in Christian Criticism

Mainstream Christians often demand that LDS prophets must never err or contradict themselves—while giving biblical prophets and their own denominational traditions far more grace.

Consider:

• The New Testament canon was finalized centuries after Christ, with much debate.
• Slavery, racism, and crusades were all justified by Christian leaders using the Bible.
• Most Protestants accept ongoing doctrinal division as natural but criticize LDS prophetic clarification as inconsistency.

To hold LDS prophets to a stricter standard than biblical ones is neither fair nor scriptural.

For Those Who Have Left the Church

Former Latter-day Saints sometimes leave because they expected a “true church” to never teach anything questionable or wrong. But perhaps we’ve misunderstood what it means to be “true.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t teach prophetic perfection. It teaches continuing revelation—which implies a willingness to revisit, refine, and even repent of earlier ideas. Just as Peter was corrected in Acts 10, modern prophets have acknowledged mistakes and course-corrected under the Spirit’s guidance.

God honors agency. He allows human error, even among His servants, to test faith and deepen dependence on Christ.

The Bigger Picture: God, Justice, and Mercy

Blood atonement, rightly understood, is not a reflection of God’s justice but of human limitation in understanding it. The early Saints were wrestling with how to build Zion in a brutal world. Their instincts sometimes leaned too far into law and not enough into grace.

But the gospel centers on Christ’s blood—not ours.

“There is no crime, however heinous, that the Atonement of Jesus Christ cannot redeem.” – Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

Today, the Church teaches compassion, forgiveness, and due process. It disavows any notion that mortal blood is required for salvation. Those earlier teachings, while historical, are not doctrinal. They are part of a larger, messier, and profoundly human story of God working through men who are learning to lead under inspiration.

So What Does This Mean for Revelation?

It means prophets can get things wrong. It means God is patient. It means truth is restored, but not always all at once. And it means you don’t need to abandon faith because past leaders said things that now seem inconsistent.

It means you’re reading the scriptures right when you see men like Peter stumble and get back up. That’s what prophets do. That’s what God expects.

Final Thought: The Only Perfect One

The Church is true—not because its leaders are perfect, but because it leads us to the One who is.

So if you’ve ever felt disillusioned, betrayed, or let down by LDS history, you’re not alone. But maybe—just maybe—the miracle is that God still speaks through prophets at all. That He still builds Zion out of dust. And that He still calls ordinary men to do divine work, even when they carry the blind spots of their time.