Recently, I have had occasion to think about animal sacrifice. The occasion is reading early anti-Mormon literature (I’ve been trying to add a component of identity negotiation to my cultural history, so have recently invested several hours making my way through various nineteenth-century texts). One accusation leveled by various critics is that Joseph Smith either engaged in or encouraged animal sacrifice. As I tried to inhabit the minds of these critics (and their intended audiences), I saw them struggling not just to enforce Christian orthodoxy (Christ had ended sacrifice by being the final sacrifice; the apostles encouraged early Christians to abstain from pagan animal sacrifices), but to play with rising early Victorian squeamishness about animals and slaughter. Thus by accusing Smith of animal sacrifice they both established his heterodoxy and made him exotic and dangerous. Modern anti-Mormons often operate from a similar perspective, in my experience.
Reading these accounts have returned my mind to the early 1980s when we were all convinced that actual Satanists formed a cabal every weekend night in the woods and sacrificed chickens as they chanted (I suspect they were in actuality 16-year-old boys telling crude jokes, smoking stolen cigarettes, and drinking Wild Turkey, but such was the tenor of the times). I think most of us now associate animal sacrifice with precisely these types of people, or worse with the sociopaths who torture non-human beings en route to heinous crimes against humanity.
There are at least two other models of modern animal sacrifice, though.
The first model I encountered five years ago in northern Georgia (Sakartvelo, an independent nation of 5 million in the Caucasus Mountains), where we happened to be at the Church of St. Mary on the Day of St. Mary. Pilgrims had traveled sometimes 100 miles on foot from Southern Russia to attend the rites on this magical day. We walked up the mountain trail to the beautiful, ancient church on a shoulder of the foothills of Mt. Kazbek (Mkinwartsveri). People surged forward, as eager and happy as Americans in clam-diggers and flip-flops making their way to a fireworks display on July 4. What I didn’t understand was why there were so many sheep. Some rode in saddle bags like dogs with their heads out a car window, others ambled up, propelled forward by merry children with slender tree branches in their hands, Others had to have their rear feet held by powerful arms to force them to stagger up like quadrupedal wheelbarrows. I asked our Georgian friend why all the sheep, and he told me, “They are for the feast.” The old maxim that Hebrew animal sacrifice was sharing one’s special meal with God struck me with considerable force that day. How wonderful to feel that God could attend your day of feasting if only you would share with him the first and tastiest part of your meal.
The second we encounter through exposes in the vein of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Millions of animals of many descriptions make their way to whatever afterlife awaits them in our modern industrial abattoirs. Like sprockets en route to widgets along a conveyor belt, these animals are sacrificed to high efficiency distribution of foodstuffs. No ceremony, no particular meaning or context for their deaths, just anonymous decease and eventual distribution to human stomachs.
I am most emphatically NOT recommending anything resembling the Satanic rituals we associate with animal sacrifice currently. I am interested in wondering together what we mean when we consider and discuss animal sacrifice and whether these views provide us insights into our collective culture, our connections to the source of food, the meaning of life and death, the the moral sterilization of industrial efficiency. I will confess that a) I have been vegetarian in the past, and b) I currently eat meat periodically with great pleasure and gratitude.
————————————
In the interest of assessing the Petty Postulate, I would add “men shouldn’t wear loafers to church.”
July 9, 2007 at 8:29 pm
And there is also the lab where we test new drugs and products to see if they are allergens or carcinogens. Many animals are sacrificed on these altars as well.
July 9, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Interesting juxtaposition of ideas. While I have strong feelings about such matters, they tend not to be particularly LDS-doctrine based, so I’ll refrain from digging into the topic. Perhaps this will suffice: I don’t think that humans are different in kind when it comes to agency — only in degree. I try to conduct myself accordingly.
July 9, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Sam, was there a ritual slaughter for those sheep?
Having spent a bit of time working to ensure kosher manufacturing facilities, I am intrigued with the idea of ritual purity of food. For all the modern sanitization in the food-chain there is very little ritual purity.
July 9, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Sam, we have no connection in modern society to the food we eat. It magically appears in supermarket aisles and in the meat section, wrapped in sanitized styrofoam containers as distant as possible from the animal itself. The very concept of killing an animal and shedding its blood is repulsive to most, and I’d wager that many of us would pass out at the prospect. But along with the disappearance of this yuck-factor to our food, we’ve also lost a sense of attachment and thankfulness for it. We say grace on our meals but no longer see the life and death behind our steaks. Animal sacrifice sounds crazy and disgusting, but at least those who perform it see the violent, potent and true nature of what we eat.
July 9, 2007 at 9:16 pm
See 69-71 and 180 (fn.53) of Grant Underwood’s excellent The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism for a discussion of an enigmatic teaching by Joseph Smith (and a few restoration scriptures) of a coming restoration of animal sacrifice.
July 9, 2007 at 9:26 pm
This comment by invitation from Steve Evans:
Lawyers are specially trained to willfully misunderstand everything at the highest possible level of personal arrogance.
Technically speaking, nobody actually seems to be “banned”. You just pretend not to hear what they say.
On reflection, this reminded me of something.
;-)
July 9, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Well said, Steve – and Sam.
I was raised in dairy and farm country, so I have little squeamishness when it comes to death. I will add that those who kill to eat tend to be more in touch with the life they take than those who only eat the sanitized result of what others have killed. I dare say the general population’s divorcement from death makes the Atonement much more abstract than it can be for those who have experienced killing an animal and its attendant suffering.
We also have the hardest time sacrificing that which we love the most – both physically and spiritually. When the bodily aspects of proxy sacrifice are lost, it is easy to lose much of the power of the symbolic sacrifice of heart and mind.
July 9, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Incredible…simply incredible.
July 9, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Stirling, I neglected to mention JSJ’s teachings on animal sacrifice intentionally, but there’s a reasonable literature on it. Whether JC Bennett and others were responding to this teaching in their accusation is not clear.
July 9, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Thank you, Joshua, but I have to admit that the sentence you excerpted had not crossed my mind in exactly that way until I read Steve’s #4. Another reason that I love this forum is the frequent working of the Spirit I believe I experience while being enlightened by others’ insights. I tweak Steve occasionally (and I really don’t know why I focus on him, unless it is because I share his twisted sense of humor), but his and others’ comments often send my mind in directions that surprise and delight me. Again, in this particular case, thanks, Steve and Sam.
July 9, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Staples #3:
hard to say. our buddy, an urban scientist, told us that they were engaging in a ritual, but it looked to me like they were primarily saying something like grace over the experience. I must confess I didn’t delve much deeper.
The one exception is that fascinating business of abattoir consulting that Oliver Sacks describes–the autistic-spectrum woman who has been slowly humanizing abattoirs. There is something ritualistic in a secular vein about her ideas.
I am fascinated by the relationships between Atonement and its antecedent in the slaughter of animals. Thanks for reminding us, Ray.
July 10, 2007 at 12:45 am
I have racked my brain for a good alternate Atonement imagery (to replace the sacrificial lamb) that would resonate with our industrial age. I can think of any number of examples for dying for others (e.g., firefighters on 9/11), but I can’t think of a single one that includes even close to all of the symbolism inherent in the sacrificial lamb – especially the imagery involved in literally internalizing the sacrifice after it has been consecrated and offered.
July 10, 2007 at 4:31 am
Regarding Ray’s divorcement from death comment, I’m sure it has other far-reaching consequences in addition to abstracting the atonement.
I wonder what it must be like to routinely kill animals out of necessity, for survival. A deeper respect for death’s finality? On the flip side, perhaps many who have killed out of necessity felt pained, emotionally, to do it, even guilty. Killing a goat or lamb that can bleat and cry and struggle for life is much more disturbing than stepping on the quiet ants. How many neuroses and other mental problem in other times and places are attributable to that most basic survival instinct?
Or maybe I’ve got it wrong. If most humans through history have been accustomed to nature red in tooth and claw, maybe there is something missing from our modern lives. (Suddenly I’m craving fries and ketchup.)
Another abstraction of the modern age that I think about whenever I watch a nature documentary is that all other carnivorous species — and some primitive humans (contemporary and particularly historical) — have never savored the delicious taste of cooked meat. Most carnivores eat their meat raw and bloody, a thoroughly disgusting practice to my modern mindset. I like my steak with just a little pink.
July 10, 2007 at 5:53 am
Sorry…I didn’t mean “incredible” as in “wonderful,” but more literally as in, “beyond belief.” And, unfortunately, not in a complimentary way.
July 10, 2007 at 6:36 am
Joshua, your followup comment demonstrates less civility than your initial offering. I’m skeptical that such incivility serves a good purpose.
July 10, 2007 at 7:11 am
Sam,
You are probably aware of this, but maybe we ought to note on this thread that animal sacrifice is practiced today in the United States by adherents of Santeria.
July 10, 2007 at 7:38 am
On the contrary, I thought it quite a civil way to express my disbelief. While animal sacrifice was obviously the symbolic precedent of the Messiah’s sacrifice, I think it arrogant, condescending (even moreso than Kristine’s “get-in-the-library” post, which was hard to top), and unwise to believe that the Atonement is more likely to be an abstraction for those who have not participated in slaughtering an animal. Those that kill are closer to God? What, then, shall we say of soldiers, executioners, and euthanasia-practicing doctors? The Atonement is even more “real” for them? Furthermore, this idea lends credence to the argument that understanding of God is not attained through the Spirit, but through our own actions. True, we must put forth the effort to learn from the Spirit, but the instructions to “diligently study, pray, and slaughter an unblemished firstborn from the flock” seem to be absent from an C.E. scripture.
Nothing personal, Ray. In fact, because you wrote this I’m assuming that you may have had some kind of enlightening experience during the course of your duties on your ranch. Perfectly valid. But again, unwise (I may have incorrectly read arrogance and condescension into your post) to assume that such an experience is necessary or even desirable for others.
July 10, 2007 at 8:09 am
And to add to Mark’s that the Supreme Court made a decision allowing the animal sacrifice in the Santeria religion. But no peyote. Or bong hits for Jesus.
July 10, 2007 at 8:15 am
Re #5 and #8,
That’s very interesting. I read a while back on the Strangites’ website that they currently practice anumal sacrifice. I’ve since wondered where this practice initiated for them.
July 10, 2007 at 8:16 am
Joshua, your point is well-taken. Slaughter and repentance don’t have much in common, and I’m certainly ambivalent about the value of killing animals.
But I think the emphasis should be on witnessing suffering and dying, not the act of killing. I imagine that even if you’re not the one in the family who does the killing, seeing it could leave deep impressions
I read an article last week about a study that correlates a person’s skill at recognizing expressions of suffering in others’s faces with their capacity to feel that pain themselves. The study suggested that some psychopaths can’t recognize others’ suffering — my boss comes to mind.
An important component of the atonement is feeling really bad about making baby Jesus bleed (although I like to think of Jesus as a mischievous badger).
July 10, 2007 at 9:33 am
Just this morning I was reading in Exodus and Leviticus about the instructions for animal sacrifice. I’m not sure what I learned or what it was really all about, but it’s interesting to read about it here, as well.
MRKH
July 10, 2007 at 10:17 am
Sam MB:
If you liked Sacks’ description of it, you might even more deeply enjoy her own description of her life and work in abbatoir design and operation: Animals In Translation by Temple Grandin. More than worth a read.
I think there is a coherent reading of a number of NT passages that one of Jesus’ objectives in His ministry was to eliminate animal sacrifice from the practices of Judaism — an objective that has been accomplished, though I’m sure that the reason for that change of practice (like the ‘reason’ for any sociological development) can surely be debated.
July 10, 2007 at 10:22 am
Thanks for the interesting post. Next week we’re starting a Girard reading club if anyone’s interested in thinking more about the meaning of sacrifice from a Girardian perspective, feel free to join in.
July 10, 2007 at 10:44 am
SMB, who, other than Bennett, made this accusation?
I’ve noticed that the Tanners quote from Wandle Mace’s journal indicating that Joseph Smith instructed some of the Twelve to prepare a room in the Kirtland Temple for sacrifice.
July 10, 2007 at 11:08 am
This is a little off-topic, but I’ve always kind of liked Joseph’s flirtation with animal sacrifice as a kind of apologetic for his institution of the practice of polygamy. It shows that he was deeply and deadly serious about his efforts to restore ancient Israel, in a much broader program (priesthood, temples) than outsiders generally consider, and polygamy can be seen as simply a part of that restoration impulse.
It may have been misguided, but it was all grounded in a belief in the Bible.
July 10, 2007 at 12:02 pm
The syncretic tradition of the Lenca in southeastern Honduras still includes a ritual animal sacrifice called the compostura, and I’ve been told that a variety of other Mesoamerican indigenous groups had or have similar practices.
The compostura, as I understand it, plays a variety of roles in their modern religious observance and festivals, including but not limited to placating certain gods and spirits (though some gods now go by saint names), making amends for wrongs committed, and inaugurating and closing the agricultural seasons of maize.
Basically, it’s a good reason to gather the community for a big celebratory feast. The sacrifices themselves are ceremonious, and the there are a variety of associated offering and washing rituals, I believe.
More recently the Catholic church decided that that can’t be called Catholic (anymore); they’ve been trying to stamp it out for a couple decades now.
July 10, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Justin, I haven’t yet consolidated my sources from extractions. The one I have in easy access is the Bennett reference (Bennett, History of the Saints, 231, 245):
JCB says that JSJ during the encounter with Sarah Pratt recommended that “a lamb should be procured and slain, and the door-posts and the gate sprinkled with its blood, and the kidneys and entrails taken and offered upon an altar of twelve stones that had not been touched with a hammer, as a burnt sin-offering, for the purpose of saving him and his priesthood.” Says that Capt Barnett’s lamb was bought and Stephen H. Goddard performed the sacrifice. Shortly thereafter JCB mockingly instructs Joseph to sacrifice another animal.
July 10, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I really don’t know what you’re trying to say here–please clarify.
On a different tack, one exceptionally odd thing about the idea of animal sacrifice in BCE Judaism is that it in no way prepared people to accept that the Messiah was going to die for their sins.
July 10, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Kevin, I agree with you. I think there was something else to it as well, beyond mere primitivism, but clearly the primitivist impulse is quite strong.
July 10, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I’m not sure anyone has connected them (I’m not as well read on this topic), but there is plenty of antagonistic literature about the black sheep sacrifice in the early Smith treasure quest.
July 10, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I’m surprised that restoration of that Aaronic Priesthood hasn’t been mentioned here.
JSH 1:69:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
and Oliver Cowdery’s account:
“But, dear brother, think, further think for a moment, what joy filled our hearts, and with what surprise we must have bowed, (for who would not have bowed the knee for such a blessing?) when we received under his hand the Holy Priesthood as he said, ‘Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!’
July 10, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Joshua, I take back the thank you. :-)
I didn’t mean to be condescending in any way, and I certainly don’t think I understand the Atonement better than someone who has not killed an animal, but I stand by my comment 100%. I will try to explain why.
As I said, I was raised in dairy and farm country. I have seen animals killed individually – including “beloved” animals, those that might even have been considered pets to certain kids. I have seen the pain in the face of a father who had to “sacrifice a loved one” – and I have heard the discussion of why that sacrifice had to be made in order to sustain life.
I was educated at a liberal arts college in the East. I attended a few Divinity School classes and participated in very deep intellectual discussions about Jesus’ suffering and death. I know that this is a serious over-generalization, but, in general, the Atonement was much more tangible to the uneducated kids on the dairy than to those who were studying to be ministers at the Divinity School. Those students could talk about it more impressively, but the dairy kids felt it in a completely different way. The students understood it in their minds; the dairy kids felt it in their eyes (the pain of dying) and their hands (the pain of sacrificing a loved one).
I have worked in the inner-cities for the past 10 years. Most of the kids I have worked to help have no concept of dairy and farm life, but many of them understand pain and suffering and death in ways I probably (hopefully) never will. When they accept the Gospel, many of them bring a depth of understanding that is amazing to see – far beyond my own. They couldn’t last 30 seconds in a theology class, but I dare say they understand the Atonement better than my fellow students and I did. The students were divorced from death and suffering; the inner-city kids knew each to their core.
You said:
1) “Those that kill are closer to God?”
NO, but those who have sacrificed a loved one, in their own imperfect way, might understand Him in a way that those who haven’t don’t.
2) “What, then, shall we say of soldiers, executioners, and euthanasia-practicing doctors? The Atonement is even more “real” for them?”
Perhaps for soldiers who have had to sacrifice a loved one to protect others; the other two – yikes! I never came close to that conclusion. I addressed painful sacrifice, not detached or mercy killing.
3) “Furthermore, this idea lends credence to the argument that understanding of God is not attained through the Spirit, but through our own actions.”
No, it doesn’t, but it does say that our actions can have a direct and powerful impact on our understanding of God – and that basic principle is one of the most fundamental in all of Mormondom.
July 10, 2007 at 2:37 pm
dude, stapley, you’re stealing my thunder. I do work on these ideas about the animal sacrifices of the treasure hunt. I agree possible connections are intriguing, if not certain.
July 10, 2007 at 3:01 pm
grin. Apologies all around.
July 10, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I would echo Ray’s comments about how our experiences inform our testimony. Someday I’ll share a story about how my summers on an Idaho dairy farm deepened my understanding of the Book of Mormon.
But specifically to the question of sacrifice and the atonement, the kind of experiences Ray describes can be huge catalysts for spiritual insights, but no guarantee. I’ve known friends who came back from Vietnam, some with deepened testimonies, others with their testimonies shattered.
There is a link between suffering, and sensitivity to the suffering of others. I am trying to find, and will post later, a link to a recent talk by one of the 12 regarding repentance and how suffering is not necessarily relieved by the atonement. Don’t have my materials accessible here at work.
July 10, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Ray–my fundamental problem with your idea rests in the presumption that you can judge or gauge understanding of the Atonement. To compare the understanding of the dairy kids to that of your friends in divinity class is beyond an over-generalization. It is impossible. Likewise, to state that a person from the inner city who has experienced death and loss has “a depth of understanding…far beyond [your] own”…Well, at least in this case you’re using one thing for which you can speak–your own understanding–as half of the equation. But you still can’t correctly measure theirs.
I’m not by any means saying that the dairy kids or the inner city kids don’t have good understandings. But your post makes it sound like you’re embracing the whole leftist “anything-but-the-WASM” idea. I say that one can achieve even a perfect understanding of any gospel principle independent of into what life circumstances they have been placed. That understanding is entirely dependent on their choices to exercise faith, obey the commandments, etc. God will provide whatever experiences He deems necessary for that individual.
Also, we inadvertently have stumbled onto another topic that I think would make an excellent separate thread–that of experiential religion. One of my favorite (bad)examples of this are the many BYU students who have been to the Jerusalem Center and believe that they have a “special” understanding of the Messiah that can only be gained by visiting Israel. I’d even be happy to kick off such a thread for you.
And my apologies for my supposition of arrogance and condescension. That’s how it read, but I’m glad that you stated that it wasn’t your intent.
July 10, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Joshua, I went back and re-read what we both have said, and I think I understand a little your reluctance to accept what I am saying. Obviously, I can’t be certain, but there are some subtle mistakes I made in wording that carried connotations I didn’t mean to include. Further, I also understand the risks of over-emphasizing one side over another, as my comments appeared to do.
First, I did not mean, at all, to disparage spiritual and intellectual understanding of the Atonement. I think that it is critical for each person to reach the most complete understanding that their spirit and mind can achieve. If one’s body is converted to the “practice” but her mind and spirit are not converted to the Gospel, it is no better than if one’s mind and spirit are converted to the Gospel but his body is not converted to its practice. Either way, conversion is not complete.
What I am trying to say is that physical experience is just as important as spiritual understanding – but only to the degree that each individual is capable of experiencing / reaching each. Frankly, I can’t judge where any individual “should” be in this balance, because I have no idea where any individual “can” be. I can, however, ascertain to a pretty good degree approximately how any individual’s balance is constructed – assuming I can spend enough time talking with her about it and fleshing out that balance.
I have been able to do that fleshing out with the students who sat in class with me and spent hours and hours and hours discussing the Atonement; I have been able to do that with the inner-city kids with whom I have spent just as many hours. Again, I know the limits of generalizing as I have done, but all of us form our opinions based on our individual exposure – and I have seen a difference in the way that the DS students, the dairy kids and the inner-city kids generally speak about the Atonement. One is more “abstract” and intellectual; one is more “concrete” and experiential.
Second, we live in a society that automatically connotes words like abstract and theoretical as being less “real” and less “valuable” than concrete and experiential. It also automatically stratifies levels of performance, knowledge, education, etc. by believing that more is better – or that one is better than the other.
I added to that perception when I used the word “better” when talking about the inner-city kids’ understanding of the Atonement. I was talking about one specific thing (physical suffering and death), so I actually just meant they understood the physical aspects of death and suffering attached to the Atonement better than I and the DS students did. I regret using that word that way, without clearer explanation. It certainly changed greatly what I meant to say.
However, I also believe that we are defined as living souls because we are comprised of spirit and physical body – and the most perfect (whole and complete) understanding of anything is that which includes our whole soul, both body and soul. I think it is acceptable to claim that, as someone who has never fought and overcome addiction, I simply do not understand the WofW in the same way that someone else does who has fought and overcome addiction. He understands it in a way I simply can’t, because I never feel the cravings he did or does. Having said that, I don’t want to have to experience it that way, and my understanding is every bit as “good” for me as his is for him. Neither is better than the other; each is the best it “should” be for each of us. In that way, I think it is perfectly acceptable to claim that a divorcement from death and suffering and killing other living things can make the Atonement more abstract for many without claiming that all whose experiences do not include those things have an “inferior” understanding.
July 10, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Ray, those are some pretty insightful observations. Thanks.
July 10, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I found my link to the topic of suffering, repentance, and the atonement. It was a talk by Elder Eyring in 1989 at BYU. He spoke of being taught by Elder A. Theodore Tuttle about repentance, and referenced D&C 19, and 95. Here is the quote that I wanted to share:
There are many stories out there where suffering has brought about deeper understanding of the Atonement. It is not the only way, but for many it is the way they finally learn when abstract discussions don’t do the trick.
I would be interested in following up on the “experiential gospel” concept discussed here. I’ve had to learn about Atonement both by learning to truly forgive, and to truly feel forgiveness from others for my own sins.
To the post that said that the Jews never learned about the sacrifice of the Messiah from sacrifices, the clues are all there, and obviously some in NT times did indeed recognize the ultimate sacrifice that makes the poor symbol of animal sacrifice inconsequential. The Passover Seder is ripe with references to suffering, atonement, and the processes of repentance (ie, the bitter herbs, the ritual cleansing of the house of leaven, etc). The signs were all there, but most did not recognize the fulfillment.
July 10, 2007 at 5:31 pm
kevinf, You might give HC talks to which I would listen.