It is sad to me to see how many Latter-day Saints there are who still teach and
embrace the doctrine of blood atonement, totally disregarding the statements of
their church leaders. Truly sad.
Not Doctrine? “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 sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain
upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about
cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong DOCTRINE; but
it is to save them, not to destroy them” (Brigham Young, September 21,
1856, Journal of Discourses 4:53).
I'm glad that the LDS church changed its mind about "blood atonement." It shows
that a church can recognize its mistakes and continue to grow in understanding.
If this isn't doctrine then why did prophets like Brigham Young and Joseph
Feilding Smith teach it. It is even referenced in the Journal of Discources
(which were said by other prophets to be like scripture) and the Doctrines of
Salvation. Do prophets teach false things? I'm confused......
I'm glad that's the churches statement. I allready felt that way. There's no
benefit but gardner felt he was going to be free and felt sorry and repentant.
Oh I am also glad they don't still believe it. But I'm just confused as to what
the LDS are supposed to believe and when? Is what we believe today to be
doctrine going to be disreguarded years down the road? The teachings of the
church can change with the changing of the times but the doctrines are forever.
Doctrines don't change, unless you think God readily changes his mind.
LDS Church leaders, at times, share their personal opinions, which are not
intended as official statements of church doctrine or policy. LDS Church
official doctrines and policies are distributed through official channels, i.e.
general conference broadcasts, church magazines, etc. Unless made through
official channels, my opinion is that what a church leader says is simply
statements of personal expression or opinion. LDS church volunteers,
such as the bishop mentioned in the news story, visit with and minister to
inmates of various faiths or no faith at all. No information is available--as
far as I know--regarding the particulars of RLG's religion.
@Heathjh:For me, the issue is rather simple. I don't know whether
God changes his mind, but I know there are some inconsistencies between what Old
Testament prophets taught the Jews and what Christ taught his followers in the
New Testament. I know there are similar inconsistencies between the teachings of
Brigham Young and those of Spencer W. Kimball or Gordon B. Hinckley. Do these
represent changes in God's law to adapt to changing times, or improvements in
man's (or prophets') understanding of God's law? I'm not sure it matters. Unlike
other religions, the LDS Church does not profess that its leaders, even its
prophets, are infallible. They are men, very good men, who are doing the best
they can to understand and communicate the will of God. I'm glad we have them.
It is important for us to be constantly studying and refining our understanding
of what God expects of us. I think that's what prophets do, and I know that's
what I should do.
"for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do"
When Christ was on the cross, he abstained from saving himself as well as the
miscreants hanging with him, any other words to say?
goneskiing - then how do we know when our leaders are speaking as men or as reps
of jesus? They don't preface ANYTHING with "now this is just me thinking
outloud here, but...."
From the Book of Mormon, read it and maybe you won't need 'clarifications'?Alma 34:11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood
which will atone for the sins of another....12 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...13 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.
RE: Heathjh, "If this isn't doctrine then why did prophets like Brigham Young
and Joseph Fielding Smith teach it?"Much that was the OPINIONS of
men (verses actual doctrine) was part of the discourse of many men, prophets
included.I appreciate the efforts the Church has been making the
last few years to differentiate the two--and to issue clearly worded statements
to help us see the difference.
People should be very careful not to read into this statement, from the church,
things that are not there. The church did not say that RLG should not be
executed. They did not say that the death penalty should not be used. It appears
that they were simply makeing it clear that the church has never beleived that a
person can atone for their own sins. This is not something new. The church's
official doctrine has always taught that Christ is the only one who can atone
for anyone's sins.
Brigham Young taught polygamy. So is it still the doctrine of the Church?When the administration of justice is perfect, maybe we revisit blood
atonement. Until then, leave it to the man upstairs. The Church is right on
Why all the fuss? The statement is as straightforward as it can possibly get. It
is also how I have always understood blood atonement (so absolutely no surprises
for me). The statements made in the 1850s by Brigham Young and others need to be
understood in the context of the times. (As should ALL statements of God's
prophets, ancient or modern.)
Anyone who understands LDS doctrine (as Brigham Young obviously did) knows that
a person cannot "atone" for their own sins, but they can take steps by being
"willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground" to help in seeking
forgiveness from the Savior.
I am sorry that some of you are confused. Those who are fully committed are not
confused, but understand that eternal progression includes our time here on the
earth, not just after this life.I hope we all continue to progress
in our understanding of the principles of the Gospel.
Judgement day is going to open so many eyes
"...And the blood of Jesus, Christ His Son cleanseth us from 'all' sin."(1John
1:7)"much more then,being now justified by his(Jesus) blood,we shall be
saved from wrath through him (Romans 5:9)The Bible versus the Mormonism.
Beowulf: You've just opened up Pandorra's box. "Context of the times, as
should all statements of God's prophetc, ancient or modern?" Wow, I'll have a
days work ahead of me on this one.
Only Christ's atonement is an acceptable sacrifice for sins. However, faith &
repentance (inter alia) are necessary to make the atonement effective in an
individual's life. There may be cases where offering one's own blood is part of
the repentance process. (That may have been David W. Patten's experience. Pres.
Kimball said the bandage of repentance must be as broad as the sin.) It does not
replace Christ's atonement. As noted in comments above, the works of mortals do
not reconcile us with God's Justice, only the Grace of God does that.
The Church is illustrating what it has always taught. Forgiveness of sin
(frankly, a relationship with God) is a personal thing to be worked out with God
through Christ. I think that some people just look to be offended and so they
will be whenever the LDS church makes a statement of any kind
How about all of us just focusing on repentance instead of what's next for
Brigham Young taught blood atonement as well as the Adam-God Theory. Brigham
truly believed in those two doctrines. The records of the day prove it.
Sometimes, opinions are construed as doctrine. I wish the Church would come out
and admit that. Its not a concern for me however as I realize that Prophets are
men and not every word that falls from their lips is straight from Kolob.
It definitely gets confusing when the prophet of the LDS church makes strong
statements to the congregations of the church, and then later, the church's PR
dept. says those statements aren't doctrine. Nevertheless, please keep those
press releases coming until all of the sexist, racist, anti-gay, and cruel
statements from the prophets have been declared as not doctrine.
RE: JosephONE: anyone who studies Mormon history knows that the blood Atonement
was taught from Joseph Smith on,the real question is not "if" but "why". One
reason,oaths and apostates.
Looks like the church has made some good doctrinal changes all for the better.
No body wants to continue to live in the dark ages now that we have all evolved
and grown some brains.Blood atonement, polygamy?..... What a crying
Not Doctrine.This is why I take issue with so many "Utah
Mormons".It doesn't matter what is official Church Doctrine,
published, or taught over the pulpit 10 minutes ago in General Confererence by a
Living Prophet.Some will stick with stupid off the cut comments from
someone's opinion 150 years ago.Which will it be people.Who are you going to follow?BTW - The Church is moving FORWARD -
with or without you....
@ goneskiing-You fail to acknowledge that opinions of the living
prophet are practical LDS doctrine, actual or implicit. LDS live by the words
they hear/read in conference/the Ensign. "Follow the prophet" is not limited to
canon. Bednar's talk "Quick to Observe" illustrates perfectly. Whether what the
prophet says is canon ...members just need to obey. Anyway if
prophets can't tell their opinions aren't doctrine as they speak, how can we
trust later prophets to say they were wrong? B. atonement in BY's
day was seen as doctrine. An ancestor of mine after committing a serious sin
went to offer himself to BY to be blood atoned. He heard the prophet teach the
doctrine and took him at his word. BY instead had him pay a fine/serve a short
jail term. Really it's been seen as doctrine until recently when it
became un-PC in the Christian world. The changes David O. McKay required B.
McConkie make in the 2nd Ed. of Mo Doc didn't include removing B. atonement. Now
as Mo Doc is retired it's embarrassing. Truly the real source of revelation here
are current societal opinion.
I like what kishkumen said about keeping these PR statements coming until all
the hateful doctrine is gone. So what is being taught today about gays, is that
just Hinkley and Monson and others speaking as men? What happens in the LDS
church if you feel a prophet is just speaking as a man and you decide to do the
opposite? I bet people in Brighams time took him very seriously. I bet they
followed his every word just as many of you do with the current prophet today.
To UtahRez, Not every statement of the Prophet is Doctrine. It is ony
canonically binding if affirmed as such, and only the First Presidency as a
whole can make a statement that is for sure doctrine.While much of
what the president of the Church says is doctrinally correct, it must be
understood in the context it is given. In the matter of the quote from Brigham
Young you must understand that he was seeking to wake up a largely slothful and
spiritually dead membership of the Church.To Lee, The LDS
Church does not have a mind. That said, you would have to find a statement
issued by the WHOLE FIRST PRESIDENCY to be able to claim the Church is "Changing
To Heathjh, Who where said that the Journal of Discourses were like
scripture?Joseph Fielding Smith wrote the material used in
"Doctrines of Salvation" largely as an apostle, and none of it as president of
the Church. It was edited by Bruce R. McConkie, who was not an apostle at the
time, and he added his own spin into the book at times.That said,
Joseph Fielding Smith and James E. Talmage had opposite views on certain issues
relating to evolution. They were mutually exclusive. They were also both
apostles. Thus it is possible for apostles to hold incorrect views.Lastly, I would urge people to consider statements in context. Wilford
Woodruff said we would not be lead astray by following the counsel of the
Prophet. What was Brigham Young's counsel? Was he speaking in a way urging the
passing or upholding of capital punishment? No. Not at all.Brigham
Young was urging people to live up to the covenants God had made and to take
seriously the commandments of God. His speech was purely religious and was not
meant to advocate for any public policy.
To the 5:29 commentator, If you are trying to use that scripture to
make comments about the justification of the death penalty you are wresting the
scriptures.It is clear from actually reading the whole scripture,
and not skipping portions as you did in your quote, that the "end to shedding of
blood" has no reference to ending capital punishment but is a reference to
ending animal sacrifices.You should also bare in mind that
government executions are acts of the state and not religious acts. We should
not consider the efficacy of Christ's atonement for the specific sin in
considering judicial punishment.
To CT98, Brigham Young's understanding of the Adam-God theory is an
issue few have really looked into. The leading scholar of the teachings of
Brigham Young insists that what Brigham Young was really saying was that there
are two Adam, Adam-God and Adam-Man. Thus, Adam is one of the names of God the
We believe in living the law of the land, and until that is changed, it will be
To kishkumen, It is interesting that you choose the name of a murderer
as your moniker.To began with, the way you write one would think
that Thomas S. Monson had made these statements. The statements were made by
Brigham Young over 150 years ago. This is not actually an unprecedented
statement. The Church has on many occasions pointed out inaccurate rhetoric in
the matter of so-called blood atonement. For one thing, Brigham Young was not
saying that he thought people should be killed for certain crimes, he was saying
that in the ideal system that did not exist this is what would occur.Was Jesus advocating tieing mill-stones around peoples' necks and throwing
them into the sea with his speeh about how it would be better that that would
happen to those who "offend one of the least of these"?Harsh
statements caling people to repentance are not always to be taken iterally.
This is why the rhetorical style of the speaker in question must be understood.
What is doctrine today will be only opinion tomorrow ..... Or so it seems. What
doctrines today do you think will be gone tomorrow? Blood atonement was
considered a doctrine by the people of that day. They listened to the prophet.
It has been taught over and over " when the prophet speaks the debate is over".
To don, What is your source for Joseph Smith having taught Blood
Atonement? Please name one date on which he spoke it, and preferably a source
where-in your statement can be cross checked.In fact, if you could
find any reference to blood atonment before the Mormon Reformation of the
mid-1850s I am sure you could make a major break-through.Every study
of the matter I have ever read, has clearly dated the first references to it to
1856 and the Mormon Reformation.
@Esquire-"Brigham Young taught polygamy. So is it still the doctrine
of the Church?"More importantly to LDS Joseph taught and practiced
polygamy too. But while Church does not practice the Principle
currently, there are many things that suggest that plural marriage still is
doctrine, although one not currently practiced on earth. D&C 132 is still canon.
Men can be and are sealed to multiple women after the death of a previous wife.
Blood Atonement in my view falls in the same category–Doctrine
considered to be true but not be practiced now. In 1978 Bruce R.
McConkie wrote of Blood atonement:"Let me say categorically and
unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no
separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the
ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses."Also:"..we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ
alone does not cleanse a person. These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
(as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a
human being with malice."
I take it that it's not at all necessary to have capital punishment, it's not
going to help save anyone's soul. But the church didn't condemm it either.
Knowing our judicial system is as corrupt as any third world country, I don't
think we should have the death penalty unless the person confesses directly and
then I still think it's the easy easy way out for the criminal.
We are suppose to follow President Monson's teachings and not Brigham Young's.
Brigham Young is now history- so are his teachings and I am happy for this. I
feel joy that I did not live during Brigham Young's leadership.
@John Pack Lambert of Michigan- @ John Pack Lambert of Michigan- Brigham
Young said, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children
of men, that they may not call scripture." (Journal of Discourses 13:95“The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works
of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every
number (issue) as it comes forth.“ (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of
Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)
Personally, I going the start worrying when Mormonism makes complete sense to
Little Dutch Lambert, you can't stop a flood with your thumb. You'll have to
come up with something a little more compelling . . .
The law required Ronnie Gardner to die for his sin. God's law requires the same
of us, "for the wages of sin is death". We all deserve to die because we have
all sinned. God's law reveals our sin and condemns us.The amazing
thing about Jesus' love for us is that He died for us that no matter how bad we
have sinned, He can forgive us - even Gardner if he put his faith in Christ
before he died. Who goes to heaven? Only those born again through
faith in Christ. It is possible that Gardner is in heaven right now. It is
also possible that the "good" people he murdered are in hell. Unless they were
born again, because there are no "good" people according to God. The
only blood atonement that God recognizes to forgive sin was Jesus' blood on the
cross. Jesus said He is the only one who came down from Heaven and the only
reason was to lower himself, take on flesh and die as a sacrifice for us. God
became man because only He could pay for the sins we committed.
I love how so many people are claiming things which they know nothing about.
Look at the context of Brighams comments. You can't just quote a phrase from a
prophet without the context. How would you like if I quoted you without any
context. Sounds kind of silly doesn't it? Those who have eyes to see, shall
In the fullness of the Old Testament Exodus 20:13 is abundantly evidenced as
prohibiting unjust killing, rather than a universal injunction
against all killing, as retzach is never used in reference to the slaying of
animals, nor the taking of life in war, while its most frequent use is in
reference to involuntary manslaughter and secondarily for murderers.
OK! The state sent Gardner to his death, not the LDS church! What do they have
to do with each other? There are MANY churches that have made mistakes in their
past, no church has a clean record AT ALL.
John Pack Lambert wrote: "The church does not have a mind."Thank
you for injecting a note of humor.
Personally, I'm not going to worry about that. I'm going to be the best person I
can be here in this earth and let God handle the rest.
I can find nothing on the Church's website about "blood atonement".If the Church issues a statement, don't they put it on their website?Was this statement made at a press conference? Who said it? Did all the First
Presidency and Quorum of the 12 attach their names to it?If not,
then it is not "doctrine", is it? Does the Church's PR spokesperson have the
authority to declare "doctrine"? Can the PR department or a press agent
contradict hundreds of years of preaching by sustained and ordained "prophets,
seers, and revelators"?
In 1877, John D. Lee was executed by firing squad at Mountain Meadows on the
site of the 1857 massacre. Among his last words:"I do not believe
everything that is now being taught and practiced by Brigham Young."
To John Pack Lambert The real question is why was the blood atoneement taught by
Joseph Smith; Oaths discouraged apostates,In Masonry the the degree of knight
kadosh resemlbes the Mormon oath taken prior to 1931.
TO- Wildflower, Good point. We need to worry about OUR OWN salvation and not
what someone else has or has not done ( WHICH SHOULD NOT BE OUR CONCERN) It is
all up to us as individuals to live a righteous life here on this tiny, little,
planet within this vast universe that we dwell :)
I left the Church over this basic Biblical teaching 24 years ago, when I became
a "born-again" Christian. I hadn't planned to leave the Church in any way, but
was just doing deep Biblical reading, trying to "get closer to Jesus". I became
enamored with His life and decided that I needed to know more. Born & raised in
the church, I was baffled at the strong testament of Christ by my non-LDS
friends, to whom I was witnessing.I just kept reading and asking the
Lord to show me how to get a powerful witness of Jesus, like my "wacky
born-again friends". They drove me nuts with all their talk about the "efficacy
of the shed Blood of Christ". They challenged me to first understand what the
Bible said about Christ, and then to see if my religion agreed. I told them of
course my church was Biblical and set out to prove them wrong.I dove
into ALL the church teachings on the subject & was blown away at what I found
our founding prophets taught at every General Conference. A man-made
foundation has to keep changing... Now do your own homework.
To the family of Mr. Ronnie Lee Gardner and to the families of his victims.
Please accept my heartfelt sympatheties. My family will keep you in our thoughts
and prayers for the remainder of our time on earth. We wish you peace and hope
you will accept our sincerity from within our loving hearts, minds, bodies and
souls. May the Lord lift you and guide you to a place of peace so your healing
may begin.The Strong Family in Arizona.
In 1978 Bruce R. McConkie wrote of Blood atonement:"Let me say
categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day
when there is no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life
is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses."Moses came down from the Mount with Commandments from God saying Thou shalt
not Kill... and proceeded to kill all idol worshippers. Also:"..we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ
alone does not cleanse a person. These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
(as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a
human being with malice."It is apparent LDS Leadership, at least in
their personal opinion, does not believe the Atonement of Christ is for
everyone. How pagan.
Dear Ct98,Good luck getting the Church leaders to answer your direct
questions about doctrinal changes on controversial topics. But I encourage you
to keep trying. If you keep a record of all letters and inquiries
that you make on any given topics, you will quickly see that you'll get many
different opinions from bishops, seminary/Institute teachers, BYU profs, church
historians, The Brethren in SLC, Sun. Sch. teachers, etc. These blogs here are
a perfect example.This is not to criticize the Church, it's just the
way it is when you have so many doctrinal changes over the past 170 years. The
bottom line is exactly as zinnia, Heathjh and others have stated about the
current prophet's declarations: His statements are current doctrine. End of
subject. But it's not the end of the subject, because even he can
change his prior revelation. The "maze" of changes is dizzying and confusing to
members; outsiders can never get a grip on this kind of "ever-changing world of
Mormonism".You will have to accept the fact that polygamy, black
priesthood holders, blood atonement, temple blood oaths, BoM text, etc. were
only "the truth" in their day.
Everyone should read the below over and over and over again. LDS inc has more
Lawyers than Stakes. The First Presidency and Monson did not issue this. Brigham
did issue Blood Atonement. Guess which is Doctrine and which is PR
tomfoolery.I can find nothing on the Church's website about "blood
atonement".If the Church issues a statement, don't they put it on
their website?Was this statement made at a press conference? Who
said it? Did all the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 attach their names to
it?If not, then it is not "doctrine", is it? Does the Church's PR
spokesperson have the authority to declare "doctrine"? Can the PR department or
a press agent contradict hundreds of years of preaching by sustained and
ordained "prophets, seers, and revelators"?
The trend of the Church to shift to the left continues.
The blood atonement and repentence go hand in handin order to take
advantage of the blood atonement of Christ you must repent and make restituion
and if that means the sheding of your own blood that is between you and the Lord
If your sorrow is true you will be willing to pay the full price to avail your
self of the atonement.
Well said, Grace. Your testimony is beautiful. And you understand Mormonism
better than any of the members currently posting on here.I would
never disregard the apostles of the New Testament the way some of the Mormons on
here are disregarding the "prophet" Brigham Young and their former "apostles."
Either these Mormon leaders are false teachers inspired by the ruler of this
world, or the members disregarding their words are bordering on unbelief. Either
way is not very happy.And btw, J-Pack Lambert, to say that apostles
are in some way inferior to a prophet is nonsense-- study the New Testament and
you will not find a government like the one used by the LDS Church. If anything,
the apostles were the supreme authority in the 1st century.
I agree with John Pack Lambert. The vast majority of confusion discussed and/or
criticized here can be resolved by people actually studying the source materials
for themselves. I did a bit of searching on the LDS church website,
and found a devotional sermon by Gerald N. Lund, who served several years as a
church general authority, entitled, "Is it revelation?" It is a common sense,
straight forward set of advice on how to ascertain divine revelation from
everything else. I highly recommend it.
I hope that the issue of "Blood Atonement" is not going to become a huge deal
with people who are trying to make a big deal out of nothing. We follow the
LIVING PROPHET and no one else, what Brigham Young said about a certain matter
may not be what President Thomas S. Monson may say about the same issue today.
The issue of blood atonement is settled when the church issues an "official
statement" on the matter as it has now done, that is the current teaching on
this matter and that should settle it. The Journal of Discourses was never
issued by the church officially as "doctrine" they were not intended to be
accepted by the membership of the church as such. I would advise all memmbers of
the church to rely on the LIVING PROPHET and THE SCRIPTURES and PRAYER and
OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED STATEMENTS issued by the church as the source of guidance on
matters that one does not fully understand, there is danger in wandering off the
path into the darkness if one uses 'unauthorized sources" to seek for answers.
Once again, people are looking for anyway to distort LDS doctrine and try and
make it look like they dont accept Christs atonement. As I read
the quote from Brigham Young, I interpret it as him saying that giving up your
own life might be what is necessary to repent of the sin of murder. Christs
atonement is sufficient to cover all sins but Christ still decides who he will
forgive and who he wont. That is his judgment alone and is based on the
repentance of the individual. All things testify of Christ and no
church teaches that more than LDS church.
Grace- I like your comments and they make sense to me. I am a struggling member
and I seem to have hard time with the all the confusion on old church doctrine.
The church history has just about done me in.
Seattleview: true that! Very well said.
to LDS Revelations: a statement by a LDS church leader is not doctrine simply
because it is mistakenly understood that way. Nevertheless, church
leaders have through the years seen time and again that people can and will take
their statements out of context, or even further than intended. Such
is often how the statements of Brigham Young are taken out of context,
misconstrued, or just partially quoted, rather than the entire statement. Yet, that is also a prime example of why modern prophets are so
necessary--to dispel the confusion by spelling out what are the true doctrines
of the church today, as well as to interpret the prior statements of Brigham
Young.What a living prophet says is more important and relevant to
your life, than the statements by a dead one. That's why Mormons are led by
living prophets, who are guided by the Lord's modern revelations.
Broken ClayI revere Brigham Young; nothing I have said disrespects
him. Isn't what God says today to the world more specifically
applicable to our lives, than what God said to ancient Israel? Should we all then disregard Moses? No, we still learn of Moses and his
teachings. Nevertheless, Christians do not live by the commandments within the
Law of Moses. The commandments and practices within the Law of Moses are no
longer required because our Lord Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice fulfilled all
of the purposes and commandments within the Law of Moses. No more need for
animal sacrifices to symbolize the Messiah's future sacrifice. Christ fulfilled
all righteousness.Christianity no longer regards Saturday as the
sabbath. Ancient Israelites were commanded to observe the 7th day as the
sabbath. Yet today, we observe the 1st day--Sunday--as the sabbath. Why is that?
To remember Christ's sacrifice! God commanded Adam on down to ancient Israel to
observe the 7th day sabbath to help them remember God's blessings of creation,
and that God rested on the 7th day. After the Savior was resurrected, Christians
began worshiping on Sunday, the 1st day of the week.
gonesking: Jesus fufilled the ceremonial law(animal sacrifice...etc) not the
moral law,the ten commandments,they are still in effect, and Jesus takes them
up a notch; The greatest commandments. Jesus said,Love you Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your mind,that is the first and greatest
commanmdment and the second it to Love your neighbor as yourself,All the law and
the prophets hang on these two commandments. (Mt 22:37-39) If you love your
neighbor you will not kill,covet or steal from him ...etc. Understanding the law
should drive you to Christ.
goneskiing . . .The New Covenant was enacted by Jesus' sacrifice in
the first century . . . His sacrifice fulfilled the Old Covenant, and rendered
many of its aspects obsolete. Are we honestly supposed to believe
that a change in priesthood for blacks due to the civil rights movement is on
par with that? Or how about giving up that eternal blessing of polygamy just to
gain temporal statehood? And denying blood atonement, though Brigham taught it
as doctrine? There is a qualitative difference here. Societal pressures are not
adequate grounds for changing revelation. And beside that, Christ said He came
to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it. You will find nowhere in the
New Testament that Sunday became the new Sabbath. Sunday is the Christian
worship day, but it is never called the Sabbath. There are better explanations
here. Blood Atonement is in contradiction absolutely with what the
New Testament teaches of Christ's atonement-- a read through of Hebrews shows
this. Orthodox Christianity will welcome with open arms those
Latter-day Saints who become disillusioned with these kind of shenanigans.
@goneskiing- Have you actually read the Journal of Discourses? These statements
that people have been referring to are hardly taken out of context. I guess you
can see it the way Pres. Clinton did -"It depends on what the meaning of the
word 'is' is". I guess you can take anything and justify or twist it to fit your
beliefs. Did BY teach this to the people? You bet he did. Was it wrong and
horrible? Yep, even in his day it was wrong and horrible, just like many of the
things he taught and said.
Zinnia, the problem is that the church has not been straightforward about its
history. If it had been, there would not be all this confusion. But in an
effort to appear perfect, the church has whitewashed its history, and this has
backfired by making the church seem less than truthful.
I don't know if blood atonement was ever considered doctrine, but the idea that
the atonement does not forgive murder has been taught for decades and
decades.The church considered those involved with abortion to be
murderers. Wondering if that is still the case?The church used to
not allow convert baptism of people involved in abortions or other types of
murders, because baptism could not lead to repentence for murder. Wondering if
that is still the case?The church used to excommunicate members
involved in abortions or other types of murder. I wonder if that is still the
case?Wondering if the atonement works for all of these people???
Change, change, change. Cool!
I hope blood atonement is a false doctrine. However the fact that church leaders
used to preach it, and not they don't anymore illustrates one obvious fact that
many LDS church members are overlooking.LDS church leadership can't
be counted on to always be right about a particular subject. Just because LDS
church leadership says something doesn't mean its true. They may be wrong.If Brigham Young was right, then the church today is wrong. Likewise if
the church today is right, then Brigham Young was wrong.So lets not
be afraid to use our own God given reasoning our own logic, and weigh what is
said. I think the last thing God really wants is for people to cease to think
for themselves and for them to let someone else do their thinking for them.
Jesus himself taught blood atonement.see Matthew 26:52. "Then said
Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take
the sword shall perish with the sword".Obviously that doesn't happen
in this life to all those who murder, however for those who believe in future
lives, this prophesy of Jesus still has room to be fulfilled.So we
have Brigham Young and Jesus on one side of the argument, and LDS church and
most other christian denominations on the other side.
apache1: the only reason Blood Atonement is a big deal here is because it was
church doctrine, taught by all the general authorities and has tons of authentic
source documents. Homework time.Where did you hear that the JDs
were not church doctrine? Where do you think those sermons were given? Who do
you think the audience was? How many of them have you read? They were carefully
transcribed, sent out by God's Prophet and Seer, Brigham Young,to "all the
world", and shipped in crates to England. Read his statement in the Forward.Try to wrap your mind around the Salt Lake tabernacle filled to
over-flowing, with pioneers who had sacrificed the lives of their loved ones
crossing the plains from Winter Quarters, and sitting eagerly at the feet of
their revered Prophet. My ancestors gave every penny and every ounce of love
and devotion to follow every word that came from that pulpit and no one debated
what was said, more less what was published.After you read what your
founding prophets taught at General Conference as God's direct commandments,
teachings and revelations, ask yourself why your God changes His mind so often?
zinnia dear,I'm praying that you will find peace and truth. Jesus
is total Peace and ultimate Truth. You know the scripture where He said, "I am
the Way, the Truth and the Life". Ask Him to clear up any confusion you might
have. He promises He will to all who truly seek Him.Just keep
faithful to where the Holy Spirit leads you, and keep asking for guidance along
the way. It's a simple and beautiful journey. If you're on the right track,
you'll feel His strong leading. But be warned- you will become so infatuated
with everything about Jesus that you won't be able to put down God's Word! Read John 10 slowly and deeply for a radical uplift: He's everything
from the Door to the Bread to the Light! But my favorite is to
read John 1:1-14, because of His promise in v.12: "But to all who received Him,
He gave the power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of
the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God."His sheep
hear His voice!
dranoel,where did you get this weird doctrine? 'Cuz it ain't from
the Bible, my friend. You can search and you will NEVER find anything that says
your own shed blood will bring you any kind of salvation, glorification, or
exaltation.You may have to pay for a life you take with your own
blood (Mosaic law), but Christ's blood is the only acceptable blood for God's
required sacrifice, right? You have read the New Testament reason, I assume:
Christ's Blood is the ONLY Blood from a Perfect Sacrifice.He is the
Perfect Lamb of God. That's why the Apostle Paul calls "all other gospels, than
the one we gave you" to be doctrines of demons. The law won't save you, (Romans
and Galations), Gnostic wisdom and special powers are false teachings (Jude and
2 Peter 2), Grace and Faith bring you into relationship with Christ, which will
give you a spiritual birth and produce true fruit/works (Ephesians and James)
and Christ is "above all and has created all" (Colossians).That's
why ANYONE creating a doctrine that your blood can cover any sins is purely
heretical, non-Biblical, and man-made.
Oh, my!! Dear cjb,HOW you came up with Matt. 26:52 having anything
to do with the shed Blood of Jesus Christ being the ONLY acceptable sacrificial
blood, from a Perfect Lamb, is quite amazing.I took Hebrew at BYU in
1970-71 and haven't stopped studying and teaching it for 30 years. Words have
meanings and you can't concoct your own translation. This scripture refers to
those who live by the sword, will eventually die by it. Period.Please read all the sermons and doctrinal teachings of Brigham before you try
to equate his antithetical revelations on Blood Atonement with anything that
Christ taught. Get some Journal of Discourses, some Church History and
biographies of your beloved prophet and tell me exactly why he said that a man
or woman might have to have their own blood shed for certain sins, "for which
the Blood of Christ could not cover"."The Unpardonable Sin" is a
different issue. If you will reference every verse on Christ's atoning blood in
the Bible: Is it sufficient for all sin? Brigham is on one side and
Jesus is on the other. Man's blood isn't perfect.
Certainly, we don't have all the answers, and some days I wonder if I have any
answers other than Man must walk by faith and obtain personal spiritual
confirmation on every subject. We all progress at different levels; that's the
tricky part to speaking as a "prophet".Not all can understand at the same level
at the same time. Be quick to forgive and slow to accuse, whether it be each
other of the Lord's annointed. Being called the Lord's annointed does not make
one perfect or all knowing.... but probably wiser than me.
The same accusations against the Church on this message board has been used
since the late 1800s. It is a false accusation. Church leaders have held a
consistent view on this topic as far back as the 1902 General Conference. There
is no change in Church doctrine or policy with this week's press
announcement.The highest punishment the LDS Church can impose on any
of its members is excommunication. That's it. The power to take a life is
reserved exclusively for the state which continues to exercise that right today.
Nor, having attended numerous wards throughout the world for many
years have I heard this "doctrine" preached. It is none of the church manuals. I
have never heard it discussed among members. Not a big deal for members, only
for critics it seems.Further, A topic mentioned in the Journal of
Discourses doesn't make it doctrine. Nor, is the Journal of Discourses
considered scripture. As for why does God ever change His mind?
Just ask Jonah what happened when he was in Ninevah. A fun story to think
re Grace | 1:50 a.m. June 19, 2010 --------------Jesus
was telling Peter, that if he killed another person, his own blood couldn't
shield him from the penalty, he would have to pay for it with his own blood.Perhaps not to you, but to me this sounds remarkably like what Brighan
Young said, i.e. there are some sins which the blood of Jesus will not wash
away, you have to pay for them yourself.Perhaps I am interperting
this wrong, or perhaps you are, but you "must" agree this is a reasonable
interpertation, given the evidence or scripture that has been passed down to
us.-------------see Matthew 26:52. "Then said Jesus unto
him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword
shall perish with the sword".
re Northern Lights | 8:24 a.m. June 19, 2010 1) Are conference talks
considered scripture?2) Are talks in the Journal of Discourses
No cjb, that's called speculation, not interpretation. None of that episode even
suggests atonement for salvation. Consistently throughout scripture (i.e., the
Bible), those who die for their own sins also die the second death. You will
search in vain to find anything otherwise.
CJB, "See Mt 26:52",also see Mark 14:43-50 and Luke 22:47-53, The synoptic
Gospels on Jesus"s arrest, He was not leading a rebellion, He was teaching
against vengeance. Jesus answered,"No more of this!And he touched the man's ear
and healed him". (Luke 22:51)
Grace:I am very happy that your efforts to get closer to Jesus have
brought you to a place where you feel the peace that can only come through
Christ. I respect you, and agree much more with you than with most of my fellow
LDS members. My personal search for Jesus has included questioning everything I
was taught and studying much of what drove you from the church. In the end, that
search has led me back to the LDS church, but now I'm a born-again Mormon. My
conclusions include:1. Prophets are fallible. Nobody ever said they
weren't. Moses was. David was. Peter was. Brigham definitely was. ETB was. They
try really hard, but they make mistakes. Hopefully, they continue to lead
us closer to a complete understanding of the simplicity of Christ's gospel, but
we still aren't there. 2. Scriptures, revelations and prophets can all
help us, but what matters most is our own discovery of the wonder of the
infinite atonement, and our own personal relationship with Christ. That's the
only thing that can save us.Much more to say, but out of room.
I agree with what you say, he was against vengence, and he wasn't leading a
rebellion. I also believe he had compassion on the soldier, who as a younger man
had decided on a this as a career.Jesus also took the occasion to
give wisdom to Peter, telling his of the consequence he must suffer if he killed
the soldier.Though I agree with everything you have stated
explicidly, I sense you disagree with my reasoning. You may disagree with me,
thats okay. My purpose is not to get everyone to agree, my only purpose is state
what I believe. That what Brigham Young said, is not in left field, scripture
can be reasonably interperted to agree with his teachings.If you
choose to make a different interpertation, that is fine. There is probably no
one scripture that everyone agrees on.There are things I disagree
with Brigham Young on, I disagree with his attitude on slavery, that he didn't
care to lift a finger to do anything about it. I more agree with Joseph Smith,
who wished in his heart, and stated that it would be done away with.
Only the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross of Calvary is the one and only
true "blood atonement" that should concern all of us today.
Dear Fellow Believers in our Lord, Jesus Christ,I feel the passion
that many here have for the souls of all who come to share their beliefs and
opinions. I appreciate the ability to communicate with "cyber-Christians".
Truly, how amazing, and if only we could have clear conversations with past
prophets, apostles and messengers!God could arrange that, but He has
chosen to leave us His Word. He knows we will debate it and search for the
Truth. We do have so much more in common with respect to our beliefs, and to
that end we each ask the Holy Spirit to guide us "unto all truth." Jesus said if we love Him we are to make disciples, feed His sheep, be
witnesses of Him and receive all power from the Holy Spirit". (Act 1:1- 10).
There were disagreements from His ascension on. Maybe it's part of the process,
but He also cautioned us of false teachings and to pray always.My
prayer is that all true seekers hear His voice and "rightly divide His Word.
(2Tim.3) "Always be prepared to make a defense, yet ... with gentleness and
On p. 195-196 of Spencer W. Kimball's book "The Miracle of Forgiveness" he
discussed the consequences of murder. It does not mention anything on the lines
of blood atonement.I would recomend anyone who wants to real
understand this matter read Lowell M. Snow's article on Blood Atonement in the
Encyclopedia of Mormonism. The full text of this article can be found on line.
The most central statement on the matter in this article is "this
view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church
at any time".This statement recently issue on blood atonement was
not issued by the First Presidency because the Church has repeatedly stated that
Blood Atonement is not a doctrine and that the Church has no official position
on the death penalty.
John P.L. of Michigan,Thank you for your references here. This has
been the 20th century church position and I have the Doctrines of Salvation
book, vol. 2 by Joseph Fielding Smith where he says the same things. However,
he clarifies exactly which church leaders decided on capital punishment and why.
I will submit his quote and refs later tonight.I will also give you
the refs for all of Brigham Young's teachings, and several of the General
Authorities talks on Blood Atonement. What I will never understand is how the
leaders can deny that certain topics were taught, when they have such excellent
record-keeping archives for General Conference?The problem for
people who follow modern prophets, (who continually add to and change previous
revelations), is that you have to remember what all your previous prophets
taught. Then one day you need to write down all the changes from what used to
be "God's Word" and what it is today and compare those to the history of the
Bible.It is also needful to list all the false prophecies and then
use God's litmus test for false prophets. (Deut.18: 15- 22).
Grace dude, I'm not buying that you are former LDS.
re John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 5:48 p.m. June 19, 2010 ------If nothing else, reading Pres Kimballs book the Miracle of
Forgiveness will give a reader a perspective on Pres Kimballs take on things.Not on Brigham Young's, but it will tell you what President Kimball
thinks about the subject.
to GraceYou sound like one of these "born again" Christians, am I
correct?If so, you believe that God is all powerful, he can do
anything he wants, you believe that God is extremely loving, more so than can be
imagined. You believe that if one happens to be born in a culture where Jesus is
not the religious figure, and dies there without accepting Jesus, that he will
consign that person to a hell of excruciating pain forever and ever.Do you see the illogic of this situation? Do you see that the "born again"
tradition which you apparently accept as true, paints God as being worse than
Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin?Do you see that in accepting this
tradition, you have laid aside all logic and reason and you are a sheep of
fables? Do you not agree that God gave you reasoning and common sense for a
reason? Yet you choose to lay it aside and make God out to be not only a
monster, but a creature of illogical and unexplainable paradoxes.
Dear UtahRez. There is nothing in BY's statement that supports bloold
atonement. He simply used an example of how far a man would want to go to try
and receive forgiveness. Nothing in that statement said the man has to do that
to receive forgiveness. Life is the most precious thing a man can have on earth
and Brigham was simply using that as a focus point to show the extent they
might want to go. Don't take quotes out of context to make
your fallacious argument. I can do that with the bible also. Don't read
into something which is simply not there.
There is no "mercy or forgiveness" in putting an innocent being to death for any
pretext whatever. And for the God (as a Father)to consent to the brutal
assassination of his own innocent son (Jesus) upon the cross to gratify an
implacable revenge toward his own children (humankind), the workmanship of his
own hands, rather than forgive a moral weakness implanted in their natures by a
voluntary act of his own, and for which consequently he alone ought to be
responsible, would be nothing short of murder in the first degree.When a debt is paid, it is canceled, and dismissed from memory, and nothing
more said about it. But in this case the sinner is told he must still suffer the
penalty for every sin he commits, notwithstanding Christ died to atone for and
cancel that sin.Where, then, is the virtue of the atonement? Like
other nonsensical doctrines from ancient times, it is at war with reason and
common sense, and every principle of sound morality, and will be marked by
coming ages as a relic of barbarism from an ignorant past.
"A man-made foundation has to keep changing... Now do your own homework"Grace and which Church of all the Christian denominations out there did
you end up alinging with seeing as Churches are created upon a group of like
minded followers interpretation of the bible, hence the reason for all the
different Christan beliefs today. If there is one true gospel, explain all the
Churches that claim to follow Christ’s word.
The entire idea that god had to impregnate the virgin mary to have a son to die
for OUR sins that we have because adam and eve ate the fruit therby giving us
sin is NOT an idea that makes sense in any way. The fact that so many people are
POSITIVE that their way of worshiping this insecure and sometimes powerless god
and the rest are doing it wrong makes as much sense, i.e. none. If
some omniscient god actually exists then I can see no way he would be as
described in the 4000 year old book written by goat herders, nor the 1800 year
old book written by a man who was starting a religion, nor the 180 year old book
written by another man starting a religion based on the other books and a new
one which conveniently made him in charge.None of it makes ANY
To Joggle and Thomas Jefferson: You both speak with great confidence about
something you don't and can't know. You also make assumptions about the
doctrine of the atonement based on your imposition of character traits on a God
you don't believe in.In order to explain the atonement to you, we
would have to go back to the very beginning and try to correct your assumptions
and impositions one at a time.
The very fact that the LDS church had to make a public statement just goes to
show the extremism that exists in the hearts and minds of some of the most
Conservative believers.We keep hearing, and are warned about
To Grace: You have much more confidence in the "excellent" transcribers of
Brigham Young's speeches than most Latter-day Saints. No wonder you left the
Church if you put your faith in the Journal of Discourses, your BYU professors,
and your study of Hebrew (which would not have helped in understanding the New
Testament) rather than the more carefully edited Standard Works of the
Church.You also seem to be curiously confused about the difference
between doctrine and practice in the Church. The things you list as doctrines
that have changed are more correctly practices that have changed.For
a former Latter-day Saint you show a remarkably non LDS expectation of how a
prophet works or communicates, and what responsibility the people have toward
the varied sorts of declarations a prophet may make.The debates
among the early apostles over circumcision and certain parts of the Law of Moses
help to illustrate how the Lord sometimes works with his prophets. Revelations
are sometimes received by the Lord's prophet but are not fully understood; the
prophet may sometimes express personal opinions; a prophet may need to be
redirected by his counselors or advisers.
@ jeff:I will gladly listen to any point that I made which is wrong
if you would kindly point them out.
@Thomas Jefferson:You are absolutely right. Religion does not make sense.
It is illogical, unscientific, unprovable, and requires great leaps of faith. Of
course, it's also important to remember that the human mind is imperfect.
Science is finite, incomplete and ever-changing. Using such a limited belief
system to try to evaluate religion is also illogical. It is to hold religion to
a standard you would not require of science. At least in science we recognize
that there is much we don't yet understand, much that science can't yet explain.
But we don't abandon science, we keep using it to perfect our knowledge and
understanding of the universe. I choose to use religion the same way.
@JeffYou don't have any idea of what I know or don't know so it is
wrong of you to make assumptions about it. Just because I disagree with the
Blood Atonement Doctrine doesn't mean I don't know what the religious view of it
is. How is my logic wrong?As Thomas Jefferson says: I will gladly
listen to any point that I made which is wrong if you would kindly point them
@cynicI try to believe what I have to believe, not what I want to
believe. I do consider religious beliefs or doctrine as an explanation, but as
you stated yourself it is... illogical, unscientific, unprovable, and requires
great leaps of faith. I'm not willing to simply fill in the gaps in knowledge
with the unproven and illogical. The ancients postulated a god or gods to
explain the natural order. Today, however, we find the universe understandable
in terms of physical laws and have no need to invoke supernatural powers. I
believe modern knowledge supercedes ancient knowledge and humans need to
progress with modern knowledge rather than looking to an ignorant past for
answers that have yet to be proven certain and probably never will be. I am
nearly convinced based on modern knowledge and the scientific method that
science is simply incomplete rather than limited and is completely
deterministic. Religion is very limited in it's knowledge except in the realm of
@Joggle: I respect your point of view, and ask only that you also respect mine.
I rather enjoy leaps of faith. Much of what we now call science also once
existed only in the imagination of some pretty free thinkers.
RE:cynicWell said...thanks.I feel the same way. I find
it amusing that we argue religious points of view and that one faith is labeled
mystical or outlandish while defending another.I find comfort and
meaning in my Mormonism. I find spritual fulfillment and enlightenment. I
believe that others find the same in their faiths, whatever that faith may be.
So...To argue a point of doctrine that from the perspective of a
"Thomas Jefferson" is folly, or from my perspective is heresy, or from your
perspective is truth...is just silly.Thanks again for your comments.
@cynicPlease keep in mind that I can't automatically agree with
someone. It's not disrespectful to disagree with someone. It has more to do with
the manner. I'm trying to be civil, but I'm not in control of your reaction to
words not meant to offend.Scientists, religion, and humans in
general don't have all the answers. I think we can't blindly adhere to rituals
set out before man knew about electricity, bacteria, distant universes, and so
on, because intellect has matured to the level of needing to understand such
proclamations. Hence the inbuilt downfall of a religion built on blind faith.
Yes, things that only existed in the imaginations of free thinkers has now been
created or verified by science. On the other hand...much that is within relgious
text remains unproven or in many cases has been disproven. Science progresses
and is self-correcting. Religion progresses slowly, if at all. Most people no
longer believe that the earth is flat or the sun goes around the earth. There
are major conflicts between science and religion and history supports that
religion wins very few of these disputes.
Do some of you who oppose disagreeing with religion think those disagrreing with
it are calling for religion to be banned? Not true. All of this alleged
disrespect occurs because those that disagree with religion give an opposing
opinion. For most religious people, their religion and their belief in God are
very important to them – even constituting the very center and focus of
their lives. Given just how important religion is to people, it's not surprising
that people will react to criticism negatively and become defensive. That,
however, doesn't justify labeling disagreement and criticism as, disrespectful,
silly, heresy...or whatever other ad homininem I've seen on this forum. I don't
expect everyone to agree with me and so should you. That is why I'm not saying
anything about the disrespect I could possibly perceive here...or insinuating
that you are intolerant of my opposing beliefs? It goes both ways you know!
About this blood atonement doctrine; If you read the 76th section of the
Doctrine and Covenants you will notice that when it describes the inhabitants of
the telestial kindom, it lists all those who qualify, but nowhere in the
description is the most serious sin, murder, ever mentioned.There
are some sins which cannot be forgiven."Wherefore I say unto you,
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."Matt
12:31Delving a little deeper: "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"D&C 132:27BY may have taught blood atonement,
but there is no recorded verifiable account that it was ever carried out.
I don't think killing sinners is christian.
Is this the new LDS mantra "It was Never doctrine" yet for many who's skin was
dark it was used as doctrine to Not allow them the same rights as white members.
Blood Atonement was never doctrine? Plural Marriage Not doctrine.Sounds
to close to making it up as we go along depending on the attitudes of the
sitting Prophet or is it President now? God is perfect. So why keep
Everybody should research where this idea of "blood atonement" actually came
from. In ancient times (maybe still in certain 3rd world countries) some groups
of people would sacrifice to appease their God. In their minds this would aid in
their crops, weather and other ways that "God" could help them. This is a ritual
that carried on into Christianity, but some now know (as I do) that this is just
a "carry over". There is no reason that a "God" would require a sacrifice or a
"blood atonement" to appease them. A loving Highter Power doesn't need
sacrifices! It's time to come into the 21st century!
Happy Valley Heretic | 8:53 a.m.Those who go the "it was never
doctrine" are the hard-core, conservative types who chant that "God is the same
yesterday -today -and forever".They belong with the FLDS, not the
LDS.But, that's what makes me progressive as opposed to their
to kimber: "A loving Highter Power doesn't need sacrifices!"Nor would it need worship. Nor would it need to have its 'son' crucified
so that 'he' could forgive us of our sins. Could 'he' not just forgive us? Nor
would it need fancy million dollar buildings for strange ceremonies. In fact,
all those things seem to belong to HUMAN nature.
Exactly...it does Thomas Jefferson. I am a Deist that does not believe that a
Higher Power or "God" is involved in these ways in our lives. I believe humans
made all these things. I do believe that a man named Jesus came and taught some
wonderful teachings (as Buddists believe that Buddha taught some beautiful
things) but I don't believe he came to make a "blood atonement". I believe that
is what the Christians wanted to say about his crucifixtion because of their
ancestors beliefs in sacrifice. But all of these things are HUMAN BELIEFS. I
don't beieve in this type of a Higher Power's involvement in human beings'
lives. There are many of us. Sometimes, you call us atheists, but we are not
(although there are those that believe in nothing) Have a wonderful life!
I appreciate that things like blood atonement, plural marriage, and the
Priesthood ban have been reversed or clarified over time. But I think we have to
be honest in acknowledging that it is not always easy (and can actually be quite
difficult at times) to distinguish between actual LDS doctrine from opinion,
tradition, culture, administration, and LDS myth. It seems that once a church
leader has been dead for 20 years, every word they uttered is likely to be
defined simply as opinion.It seems that as of late, Public
Relations, apologists, and scholars have had the primary job of clarifying
doctrine. Actual LDS leadership has been very careful not to make definitive
statements or state personal opinion that could be considered controversial.
Talks tend to be very generic and fairly mainstream Christian - minus the
occassional Brother Holland Book of Mormon type of sermon.This
certainly is not a negative thing - just very, very different from the preaching
style of earlier church leaders.
And it tells us something of the human desires to have someone to "save us"
Idaho Coug. It tells me all of the things I said above. You have good points
to share and I believe people like you will come to the same conclusions that I
have. We don't need to be scared either...we are all apart of a wonderful
Short, simple, and to the point.And most important of all, true.The idea of blood atonement is false.Just go ask the former
king named David....
If you will read the statement carefully you will notice a difference between
the first and second paragraph. The first paragraph talks about restitution
and a "blood atonement" as alluded to from past leaders. Restitution is one of
the steps a person goes through when they fully repent and then after all the
required steps take place then the atonement of the Savior makes us whole and
clean. The second paragraph only only says that there is nothing we can do on
our own merits to make us whole and clean. Only the power of the atonement of
the Savior will cleanse us from sin. The statement can be confusing (Only
because the two issues of restitution and atonement are convoluted) but I don't
see any disagreement between what was taught by prophets of old and the
statement issued by the church.
you should all read Bruce McConkie's Letter of Rebuke to Professor Eugene
England of BYU. you can find it in any search if you just type it in like i have
written it. Page 6 is where McConkie states that Brigham Yound lied. If you read
through the next couple of pgs there are many things that are of concern. Mainly
about what we believe as LDS... about keeping our mouth shut if we find things
that are wrong with church leaders teachings... Anyone know why the Journals of
Discourse's that are the teachings of the prophets were removed from homes in
the 70's? OH yeah! he says that if we believe our prophets teachings and if they
are wrong we lose our souls! But we are taught to believe what the prophets
teaches... Right? it also states that the only atricles you should write
is if it is faith promoting! let me know what you think.
Can someone direct me to the official statement on a Church website? Where did the Deseret News get this information? I have not been
able to find it.
Should a proven murderer live, or should he die? It's not a complicated
question. Call it justice, and most everybody here would want a life for a
life; perhaps a few would prefer the living death of life imprisonment; but
probably all would demand some form of payment or 'atonement' for the
sin. But connote it with doctrine, and suddenly, it's theocracy gone
haywire, with people tripping over quotations and statements they have no real
wish to comprehend. All along, it's the same question.