67 replies to this topic

[Nevo]

Carborendum, on 01 May 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

If you know of one, I'd like to see it.

The quote attributed to Joseph Smith in the History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 296, reads: "In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so." It appears under the heading "The Questions of 'Currency' and Blood Atonement, in the Nauvoo City Council."

[K-2]

It seems to me that two separate issues are being discussed here. The first is regarding whether capital punishment is appropriate or required for certain crimes according to God. The second is whether death is required for some members of the Church in order to receive a forgiveness of sins.

What about 1 Cor. 5:4-5?
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This is in a religious context and is done so "that the spirit may be saved."

What about D&C 132:26, 41, 64?

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.


Here we see that people who are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise through the holy anointing and then break certain covenants are to be destroyed. The phrases "delivered unto the buffetings of Satan" and "I will destroy her" suggest, rather than the offender being physically killed or sacrificed by another mortal, that they would be delivered up to the Lord who would then remove all protection of them from Satan and allow them to be destroyed by him, as in the passage from 1 Cor. 5 above.

[Mark Beesley]

Cobalt-70, on 02 May 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

The 2010 statement says that the atonement of Jesus was "infinite and all-encompassing." Bruce McConkie, on the other hand, claimed that "there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person." He also said that, in effect, the blood atonement doctrine was the official doctrine of the church as a theoretical principle, but that it was operative only in a theocracy. He said there was no doctrine of blood atonement "in this dispensation." By contrast, the 2010 statement says that Jesus' atonement applies to all people, apparently including those in a theocracy who have committed grave sins.

The 2010 statement by the Church says,

Quote

We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

McConkie wrote:

Quote

We believe that the blood of Christ, shed in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary, cleanses all men from sin on condition of repentance.  As expressed by a Book of Mormon scripture: "Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. (Mosiah 3:18.)

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.)

Edited by Mark Beesley, 03 May 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[K-2]

Mark, you don't think we were given a law about this in D&C 132?

[Mark Beesley]

K-2, on 03 May 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Mark, you don't think we were given a law about this in D&C 132?

Read McConkie's letter here.

No, I don't think we have been give a law implementing so-called blood atonement.

[Cobalt-70]

Mark Beesley, on 03 May 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

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]

Cobalt-70, on 03 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

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]

Mark Beesley, on 03 May 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

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 by Cobalt-70, 03 May 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[Valentinus]

Blood atonement outside of Jesus' sacrifice is worthless. Teaching its necessity post-Resurrection shows an utter lack of understanding the reason for Jesus.

[zelder]

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 by zelder, 04 May 2012 - 02:56 PM.

[bluebell]

Valentinus, on 03 May 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

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]

bluebell, on 04 May 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

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.

[Log]

That doesn't answer the question asked.

[zelder]

Log, on 04 May 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

That doesn't answer the question asked.

You are right.  However, I'm suggesting that the question is irrelevant.

[zelder]

I never had a problem with blood atonement until the church repudiated it in 2010.

[Log]

zelder, on 04 May 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

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]

Log, on 04 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

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]

zelder, on 04 May 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

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.

Quote

The 2010 statement came as a big shocker for me and caused me to reevaluate my faith in the Prophet and priesthood leaders.

Seriously?

Quote

I try not to condemn the things of God despite the mistakes of men.

Good move.

[zelder]

Mark Beesley, on 04 May 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

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 by zelder, 04 May 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[Mark Beesley]

zelder, on 04 May 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

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.