67 replies to this topic

[zelder]

Mark Beesley, on 04 May 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

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]

zelder, on 04 May 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

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]

zelder, on 04 May 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

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 by bluebell, 04 May 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[K-2]

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?

[Valentinus]

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

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]

Valentinus, on 04 May 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

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]

zelder, on 04 May 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

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 by Cobalt-70, 04 May 2012 - 07:08 PM.

[K-2]

Cobalt-70, on 04 May 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

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]

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.

[Valentinus]

bluebell, on 04 May 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

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.

[bluebell]

Valentinus, on 04 May 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

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.

Why?  (What i'm really asking is for you to explain the statement above, not just repeat it.   )

Going back to the example i already used-returning something you stole to repent of theft is a necessary step in the repentance process, even though it doesn't add to the salvic properties of the Atonement in the least.   It doesn't help Christ atone for that sin--it doesn't affect the reality of the Atonement at all--but He still requires it.

If that is true (and i believe that's truly how repentance works), then why does the idea of restitution for murder by forfeiting your life automatically call into question the reality of the Atonement when restutition for theft by forfeiting the item you stole doesn't?

Edited by bluebell, 05 May 2012 - 04:55 AM.

[Log]

Why doesn't requiring repentance obviate the Atonement, now that you mention it?  I want to hear an explanation for that.

Because once you buy into the notion that the Atonement requires an action or effort of any kind to become effected, the haemophobiacs are stuck avoiding BlueBell's question.

Edited by Log, 05 May 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[David T]

bluebell, on 05 May 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

Why?  (What i'm really asking is for you to explain the statement above, not just repeat it.   )

Going back to the example i already used-returning something you stole to repent of theft is a necessary step in the repentance process, even though it doesn't add to the salvic properties of the Atonement in the least.   It doesn't help Christ atone for that sin--it doesn't affect the reality of the Atonement at all--but He still requires it.

If that is true (and i believe that's truly how repentance works)

I think there's some assumptions going here which muddy this discussion. Say I've stolen something in the past. I since have had a sincere change of heart, and find that, for one or another real and legitimate reasons, it is not possible to return the item, or re-change the course of that person's life which had been altered by the event of my having stolen the item.

Are there some who really believe that the Atonement would be ineffective for this individual?

This is a case where, from my perspective, we're getting caught up, Pharisaical-style, of fulfilling the principle of repentance by over-regulating its application, and then creating ad-hoc doctrines to explain the practices.

Restitution, or returning back what was taken when it is within one's power to do so, is a sign of one's true conversion, not a stand-alone button that needs to be pressed to activate the Atonement. Willingness to take responsibility for one's actions - including serving the government instituted legal penalty when charges are brought - is also a sign of one's humility, conversion, and accountability.

It is my view that we do the meaning of the Atonement a disservice when we turn helpers, guideposts, and signs of becoming Christlike into checkmarks that, if not done, must mean the Atonement won't work. Yes, the helpers, guideposts, and signs are extremely helpful, and even empowering. But when they overpower the underpinning principles on which they are based, of grace, and becoming more like the Savior, they become tools of guilt and obligation rather than assistance in a path of true spiritual reform and healing.

I see the Atonement as being activated as it changes someone's life, and draws them towards the Love of God, and they become At One with his love, purposes, and desires. And then the 'signs follow those who believe', and are changed. I believe we are forgiven before we repent, and that our conversion and impulsion to repent comes from the powerful recognition of the love of God that forgave a sinner - much like Valjean's conversion and repentance following and as a result of his forgiveness by the humble Bishop he stole from, in Les Miserables.

Edited by David T, 05 May 2012 - 10:16 AM.

[LDSGuy]

Might "blood atonement" also refer to suffering even as Christ suffered? I know that with blood atonement a repentant attitude would be necessary, and that suffering as Christ did would be because of failure to repent. However, I think the principle is there. Wouldn't blaspheme against the Holy Ghost be one for which a person would have to make atonement for themselves? Or, is it still unforgivable even with "blood atonement?"

[bluebell]

David T, on 05 May 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

I think there's some assumptions going here which muddy this discussion. Say I've stolen something in the past. I since have had a sincere change of heart, and find that, for one or another real and legitimate reasons, it is not possible to return the item, or re-change the course of that person's life which had been altered by the event of my having stolen the item.

Are there some who really believe that the Atonement would be ineffective for this individual?

I don't know of anyone who would believe that the Atonement would be ineffective in such a case, but does that mean that restitution, when it is possible, isn't necessary?

And if it is necessary, even if it's not 100% of the time, then my question is still valid.

Quote

Restitution, or returning back what was taken when it is within one's power to do so, is a sign of one's true conversion, not a stand-alone button that needs to be pressed to activate the Atonement. Willingness to take responsibility for one's actions - including serving the government instituted legal penalty when charges are brought - is also a sign of one's humility, conversion, and accountability.

Yes, of course.

Quote

It is my view that we do the meaning of the Atonement a disservice when we turn helpers, guideposts, and signs of becoming Christlike into checkmarks that, if not done, must mean the Atonement won't work.

I completely agree.  But then again, i never meant to imply anything about helpers, guideposts, and signs like you have said above.

Quote

I see the Atonement as being activated as it changes someone's life, and draws them towards the Love of God, and they become At One with his love, purposes, and desires. And then the 'signs follow those who believe', and are changed. I believe we are forgiven before we repent, and that our conversion and impulsion to repent comes from the powerful recognition of the love of God that forgave a sinner - much like Valjean's conversion and repentance following and as a result of his forgiveness by the humble Bishop he stole from, in Les Miserables.

I believe repentance is the act of returning to God when our choices have lead us away from him, and that that is why God requires repentance.  Repentance is not just turning around to go back the other direction, but the actual journey of going back which results in us being one with God.

This journey doesn't help the Atonement have any power to save us, it helps us to access the power of the Atonement.

And if returning a stolen item, when possible, helps us to accomplish that journey without denying the reality of the Atonement, then why couldn't forfeiting your life when you have taken the life of an innocent person do the same thing?

(and again, just to be clear, i'm not arguing for blood atonement.  I'm questioning the reason that has been given of why it can't be true.)

[David T]

bluebell, on 05 May 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

And if returning a stolen item, when possible, helps us to accomplish that journey without denying the reality of the Atonement, then why couldn't forfeiting your life when you have taken the life of an innocent person do the same thing?

(and again, just to be clear, i'm not arguing for blood atonement.  I'm questioning the reason that has been given of why it can't be true.)

If we're talking about 'forfeiting your life' as just a trade-out, as in, "well, I took his life, now I need to have my own taken", for some reason apart from seeing to the potential demands of legal justice, it doesn't make any Gospel sense. The grieving family members and friends don't get their dead back just because the murderer was killed. It's not a practical 'trade'.

What does make sense is the willingness to forfeit one's life in the line of active Christian duty - and this is a promise all Temple-going Latter-day Saints explicitly covenant they are willing to do - not just murderers! The best example is Saul/Paul. While we don't know the details, we do know that not only did he approve of the murder of Christians, he also did all he could to put them into a position where they would be killed. He was very literally an accessory to murder. Now, under the principle of 'Blood Atonement', one could argue that upon conversion, he should have given himself over to the authorities and been killed right there, to atone for what he did. Instead, he forfeit his life in another way - by devoting it to teaching the world the Gospel. He sacrificed all that he possessed, even, eventually his own life, in sustaining and defending the kingdom of God.

I say this lifetime of service and devotion to Gospel and the lives he was seeking to better, to the end where he was willing to be murdered (and in his case, he was) speaks more of the effect of the Atonement on one's life than turning oneself in before a firing squad. In fact, that was also literally what Jesus did - live a life of service and devotion to God and the lives he was seeking to better, to the end where he was willing to be murdered (and he was).

We're all called to that degree of devotion - however, thankfully, in most cases, we're not placed in a position where fulfilling our responsibilities has murder as an inevitable end to our lives and serivce.

Edited by David T, 05 May 2012 - 06:15 PM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

^ Amen.

[bluebell]

David T, on 05 May 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

If we're talking about 'forfeiting your life' as just a trade-out, as in, "well, I took his life, now I need to have my own taken", for some reason apart from seeing to the potential demands of legal justice, it doesn't make any Gospel sense. The grieving family members and friends don't get their dead back just because the murderer was killed. It's not a practical 'trade'.

What does make sense is the willingness to forfeit one's life in the line of active Christian duty - and this is a promise all Temple-going Latter-day Saints explicitly covenant they are willing to do - not just murderers! The best example is Saul/Paul. While we don't know the details, we do know that not only did he approve of the murder of Christians, he also did all he could to put them into a position where they would be killed. He was very literally an accessory to murder. Now, under the principle of 'Blood Atonement', one could argue that upon conversion, he should have given himself over to the authorities and been killed right there, to atone for what he did. Instead, he forfeit his life in another way - by devoting it to teaching the world the Gospel. He sacrificed all that he possessed, even, eventually his own life, in sustaining and defending the kingdom of God.

I say this lifetime of service and devotion to Gospel and the lives he was seeking to better, to the end where he was willing to be murdered (and in his case, he was) speaks more of the effect of the Atonement on one's life than turning oneself in before a firing squad. In fact, that was also literally what Jesus did - live a life of service and devotion to God and the lives he was seeking to better, to the end where he was willing to be murdered (and he was).

We're all called to that degree of devotion - however, thankfully, in most cases, we're not placed in a position where fulfilling our responsibilities has murder as an inevitable end to our lives and serivce.

Yes, this does make sense and it's what i've been waiting for someone to say.

It shows that it's not simply the reality of Christ having already died for our sins that makes blood atonement wrong, but that there are practical reasons (which parallel the teachings of the gospel concerning the purpose of life) which provide valid reasons for not accepting the doctrine.  

It's the 'why' i wanted to see put into writing.  

As a side note, it would be interesting to hear BY's interpretation of the doctrine and more particularly his defense of it, since he obviously had all of the same knowledge that we do concerning the purposes of the gospel and yet seemed to have come up with an idea that many of us see as being contradictory.  I don't think we could just say that he didn't get 'it' and that if he knew what we know he would have believed as we do.  Makes me wonder where he was coming from.

[Log]

I don't see it as contradictory that in order to repent fully from a murder that the murderer should voluntarily consent to being slain, as the Lord has commanded murderers should be killed, both anciently and modernly.  Neither do I see it as contradictory that in order to fully repent a thief must restore at least what was taken if possible, and more, according to both precept and example in the scriptures.

I'm not seeing a direct answer to that issue, which I originally thought was Bluebell's question.  I guess it wasn't.

Edited by Log, 05 May 2012 - 09:14 PM.

[Bernard Gui]

Mark Beesley, on 04 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Perhaps.  I've never thought the brethren were infallible.  I take comfort in knowing that they make mistakes.  Makes me more like them.  

And it makes me like them more.

Bernard