Cobalt-70 Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 Everything else McCronkie wrote was theoretical under a law we have not been given. If we are not given a law, we are not subject to it. Thus, under the law which we now live, the Church's 2010 statement is entirely consistent with what McConkie wrote. (Unless of course you think God treats people who lived without a law the same as those who lived with a law. But the Book of Mormon teaches that God does not do that.)What was not theoretical was McConkie's statement that there are some sins for which the atonement of Jesus does not apply. That was disavowed by the 2010 statement, and the 2010 statement is not consistent with what McConkie said. I also think you have to really strain the language of the 2010 to get out of it the idea that blood atonement is still a theoretical doctrine of the church, which might apply under a theocracy. I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation of the 2010 statement.
Mark Beesley Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 What was not theoretical was McConkie's statement that there are some sins for which the atonement of Jesus does not apply. That was disavowed by the 2010 statement, and the 2010 statement is not consistent with what McConkie said. I also think you have to really strain the language of the 2010 to get out of it the idea that blood atonement is still a theoretical doctrine of the church, which might apply under a theocracy. I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation of the 2010 statement.OK, we disagree.
Cobalt-70 Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) No, I don't think we have been give a law implementing so-called blood atonement.I do agree that blood atonement has never been implemented, on an official level, in the LDS Church. The First Presidency during the Mormon Reformation stopped short of actually implementing it as an official part of the church disciplinary process, because the Utah Territory was still, at least in theory, still under the sovereignty of the United States government. President Jedediah Grant said, "I wish we were in a situation favorable to our doing that which is justifiable before God, without any contaminating influences of Gentile amalgamation, laws, and traditions." But he said, as a theoretical matter, it was the right of the church "to kill a sinner to save him, when he commits those crimes that can only be atoned for by shedding his blood....We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him." (Grant, Discourse, Deseret News, vol. 4, issue 20, pp. 1-2, July 27, 1854).Thus, given that the church would have been in a lot of trouble from the U.S. government if it had performed human sacrifices of its own members, the church thereafter relied upon the power of the state as a proxy to perform such sacrifices of Mormons as part of the normal capital punishment system. The Utah territory and Utah state implemented laws that prohibited hanging, and allowed execution only by firing squad and beheading. That system was imperfect, however, as it did not allow the sacrifice of Mormons who committed non-capital religious offenses, such as adultery, miscegenation, and breaking temple covenants. Edited May 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Damien the Leper Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 Blood atonement outside of Jesus' sacrifice is worthless. Teaching its necessity post-Resurrection shows an utter lack of understanding the reason for Jesus.
zelder Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) Blood atonement is one of those faith defining doctrines (or teachings that was taught by past prophets). The 2010 statement came as a big shocker for me and caused me to reevaluate my faith in the Prophet and priesthood leaders. When I coupled blood atonement with several past statements surrounding the priesthood ban I realized that I have to govern myself regardless of what church leaders say. Blood atonement and the priesthood ban came to me as two witnesses that the modern church is subject to the "mistakes of men" and that perhaps even my own beloved "true and living church" does err in many things. I try not to condemn the things of God despite the mistakes of men. Edited May 4, 2012 by zelder
bluebell Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 Blood atonement outside of Jesus' sacrifice is worthless. Teaching its necessity post-Resurrection shows an utter lack of understanding the reason for Jesus.I'm certainly not trying to argue in favor of the idea of blood atonement, but i'm not sure i'm understanding what you are saying here.Why does the reality of the Atonement mean that the repentance process for murder would never include giving up one's own life?
zelder Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 Why does the reality of the Atonement mean that the repentance process for murder would never include giving up one's own life?Where is the scriptural support? Where is the revelation for this doctrine? There is no clear scriptural support nor is there any revelation for this doctrine. Furthermore, there is no record that Joseph Smith ever taught it. In contrast, I think we could find several scriptures that would contradict blood atonement. We have all the same problems with blood atonement that we had with the priesthood ban.
zelder Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 That doesn't answer the question asked.You are right. However, I'm suggesting that the question is irrelevant.
zelder Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 I never had a problem with blood atonement until the church repudiated it in 2010.
Log Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 You are right. However, I'm suggesting that the question is irrelevant.I'm not interested in that - you pretended to respond. Do, therefore, respond.
zelder Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 I'm not interested in that - you pretended to respond. Do, therefore, respond.?? I don't believe in blood atonement, neither does the church. Only someone who believes in blood atonement can respond to the question. It sounds like maybe you believe in blood atonement. If so, I think you should respond.
Mark Beesley Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 Blood atonement is one of those faith defining doctrines (or teachings that was taught by past prophets).What do you mean taught? A passing reference to some obscure, theoretical doctrine that has never existed in the past 2000 plus years hardly constitutes a teaching. It hasn't been included in any Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society, Seminary, Institute or Primary manuals as far as I know.The 2010 statement came as a big shocker for me and caused me to reevaluate my faith in the Prophet and priesthood leaders.Seriously?I try not to condemn the things of God despite the mistakes of men.Good move. 1
zelder Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) What do you mean taught? A passing reference to some obscure, theoretical doctrine that has never existed in the past 2000 plus years hardly constitutes a teaching. It hasn't been included in any Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society, Seminary, Institute or Primary manuals as far as I know.Mormon apologists create unnecessary bad feelings when they can't acknowledge embarrassing things that were taught by prophets from the pulpit. There is no way around it. We have to simply own it and accept it. My approach to accepting it might be different from yours but denial gives Mormon apologists a bad reputation. We loose all credibility and respect when we deny what was taught.It was a mistake, an ugly mistake but God is real, he loves us and the mistakes don't mean the true revelations and doctrines didn't come from God. Edited May 4, 2012 by zelder
Mark Beesley Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 Mormon apologists create unnecessary bad feelings when they can't acknowledge embarrassing things that were taught by prophets from the pulpit. There is no way around it. We have to simply own it and accept it. My approach to accepting it might be different from yours but denial gives Mormon apologists a bad reputation. We loose all credibility and respect when we deny what was taught.I guess we disagree on what it means to "teach" something.
zelder Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 I guess we disagree on what it means to "teach" something.Maybe. I'd rather think that your coping method is different than mine.
Mark Beesley Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 Maybe. I'd rather think that your coping method is different than mine.Perhaps. I've never thought the brethren were infallible. I take comfort in knowing that they make mistakes. Makes me more like them.
bluebell Posted May 5, 2012 Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) Where is the scriptural support? Where is the revelation for this doctrine? There is a lot of support for the notion of restitution being a part of repentance. There are also many verses of scripture which state that the blood of the innocent cries out for justice against those people who have murdered them and that God often allows people to die to specifically silence those cries.I'm not saying that is evidence for blood atonement in the least though, as my question didn't have to do with supporting blood atonement so much as it had to do with the idea, which is seemed Val was supporting, that the reality of the Atonement of Christ proves that restutition for murder cannot include losing your own life.Given that repentance, as i understand it, always includes the need for restitution as much as is possible, despite the reality of the Atonement, Val's statement was intriguing to me.Why does returning what is stolen in order to be forgiven of theft, for example, not make a mockery of the Atonement, but losing your life in order to fasciliate repentance for murder, does?(Again, i'm not arguing for blood atonement but wanting more clarification on the idea that the resurrection automatically proves it's a false doctrine). Edited May 5, 2012 by bluebell
K-2 Posted May 5, 2012 Posted May 5, 2012 What does the "destroyed in the flesh" thing from D&C 132 really mean though? Who would it apply to? Would that be a form of blood atonement?
Damien the Leper Posted May 5, 2012 Posted May 5, 2012 I'm certainly not trying to argue in favor of the idea of blood atonement, but i'm not sure i'm understanding what you are saying here.Why does the reality of the Atonement mean that the repentance process for murder would never include giving up one's own life?Are you speaking of suicide or capital punishment...taking a life is taking a life.
bluebell Posted May 5, 2012 Posted May 5, 2012 Are you speaking of suicide or capital punishment...taking a life is taking a life.Neither really.I'm speaking about the notion that restitution for murder through losing your life has to be worthless because of the reality of the Atonement.
Cobalt-70 Posted May 5, 2012 Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) I never had a problem with blood atonement until the church repudiated it in 2010.I, and probably most other post-McConkie Mormons, have the opposite reaction. I'm relieved by the 2010 statement because I think the blood atonement doctrine weakened the very foundation of Christianity. What was the point of the crucifixion if Jesus didn't die for everyone's sins, and if you yourself could die for your own sins? Edited May 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70 1
K-2 Posted May 5, 2012 Posted May 5, 2012 What was the point of the crucifixion if Jesus didn't die for everyone's sins, and if you yourself could die for your own sins?Maybe to get you to the point that you could?
blackstrap Posted May 5, 2012 Posted May 5, 2012 Many sins as presented in the Old Testament,required the death of the sinner.Such deaths were to be carried out by stoning ,which is a particularly bloody and offtimes slow process. There were and are several quick and relatively pain-free ways to kill a person and yet these were not the chosen method,Why? Why all the centuries of BLOOD sacrifice in Israel? Why all the times when societies resorted to human blood sacrifice if there were no connection to a personal death in a bloody manner which would restore the cleanliness of individuals or communities.? I can understand the foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice but I also think there is more to it from an individual's perspective.
Damien the Leper Posted May 5, 2012 Posted May 5, 2012 Neither really.I'm speaking about the notion that restitution for murder through losing your life has to be worthless because of the reality of the Atonement.Again, outside the Crucifixion, Blood Atonement is worthless. If it meant ANYTHING at all, there would be no need for the ultimate revelation that is the Resurrection.
Recommended Posts