There Are Sins...

[soren]

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kingdom.htm

I am not saying we have eternal security. I am saying that sinner's blood is not an acceptable sacrifice to God.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am not saying we have eternal security. I am saying that sinner's blood is not an acceptable sacrifice to God.

A history of a few hell fire laced speeches from Brigham Young, J.M. Grant and a few others vs. the bloody history of the Catholic Church, I'll take the former every time.

[Zakuska]

Simple, but not simplistic.

These verses teach that God firgive sins done in ignorance, it by no means implies that he only forgives such sins. That is a completely unwarranted addition. David was forgiven for knowingly murdering Urias after he had come to know God.

Yes God "put Davids sin away", and then took it out on the unborn child. IMHO That would have been pure hell to watch him suffer. No wonder David exclaimed... "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".

God can forgive who he wants without exacting the penatly of the Law... becuase...

James 2: 13

13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

And all because of Christ.

[soren]

Yes God "put Davids sin away", and then took it out on the unborn child. IMHO That would have been pure hell to watch him suffer. No wonder David exclaimed... "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".

God can forgive who he wants without exacting the penatly of the Law... becuase...

James 2: 13

13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

And all because of Christ.

God can forgive what he wants without exacting the penalty of the law? God's mercy is totally just, and the law must be fulfilled, hence Chrsit's sacrifice on the cross. This unique sacrifice is what makes it possible for God to exercise mercy while still fulfilling all justice.

How does your view of divine mercy help the case for blood atonement? It seems to undermine it, since it creates a way for God to forgive any sinner he likes.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The main problem is, the wrested quotes of Pres. Young somehow leave out the most important one:

The one where he says blood atonement is not required in our day.

He said it.

Can you find it?

If not, why not?

[soren]

The main problem is, the wrested quotes of Pres. Young somehow leave out the most important one:

The one where he says blood atonement is not required in our day.

He said it.

Can you find it?

If not, why not?

The quotes are not wrested. If you assert that they are, what toher interpretation do you propose, and how do you justify it? What pivotal context have I left out that would change the outcome of the basic problem that Young is teaching human sacrifice. What evidence do you have to show that this interpretation is wrested out of context?

Whether blood atonement is required in our day or not is irrelevant, because the issue has to do with the nature of sacrifice itself. If blood atonement were a true doctrine, then I say go ahead and do it. Save people's souls by shedding their blood. But my point is very different. My point it that the sinners' blood cannot save a man from any sin, because it is not an acceptable sacrifice. That is a timeless truth based on the nature of God himself, who is entirely pure.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The quotes are not wrested. If you assert that they are, what toher interpretation do you propose, and how do you justify it? What pivotal context have I left out that would change the outcome of the basic problem that Young is teaching human sacrifice. What evidence do you have to show that this interpretation is wrested out of context?

Whether blood atonement is required in our day or not is irrelevant, because the issue has to do with the nature of sacrifice itself. If blood atonement were a true doctrine, then I say go ahead and do it. Save people's souls by shedding their blood. But my point is very different. My point it that the sinners' blood cannot save a man from any sin, because it is not an acceptable sacrifice. That is a timeless truth based on the nature of God himself, who is entirely pure.

Whether or not Brigham Young understood the idea of "blood atonement" or not isn't my question. Please answer the ones I asked.

[grego]

punishing the man who was committing adultery with a woman outside of Israel was not redemptive, but punitive.

IIRC, it was *redemptive* to the camp of Israel.

[rhinomelon]

IIRC, it was *redemptive* to the camp of Israel.

You could make that case, but even then that wouldn't link up with BY's blood atonement. Young's doctrine is the shedding of a person's blood for their own sins, not to affect other people.

Can you find it?

If not, why not?

Okay, I'll answer your questions. No, I can't find it. Why not? Because it's really not that important, I wouldn't know where to look, and you obviously already know the answer, and I can't wait for you to share it with us!

Did I answer right?

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

You could make that case, but even then that wouldn't link up with BY's blood atonement. Young's doctrine is the shedding of a person's blood for their own sins, not to affect other people.

Okay, I'll answer your questions. No, I can't find it. Why not? Because it's really not that important, I wouldn't know where to look, and you obviously already know the answer, and I can't wait for you to share it with us!

Did I answer right?

Take care, everyone

Not really the answer I was looking for. More like "the reason I know about other quotes, but not the one's that would in any way vindicate Young's comments, is because I'm not interested in it enough to find out; my mind is made up and I am only looking for evidence to sustain what I already believe."

[rhinomelon]

Not really the answer I was looking for. More like "the reason I know about other quotes, but not the one's that would in any way vindicate Young's comments, is because I'm not interested in it enough to find out; my mind is made up and I am only looking for evidence to sustain what I already believe."

That was the answer you were looking for? That's kind of strange. Maybe you should ask Zakuska to provide the quote you seem to be thinking of, since it is his interpretation of Young's sermon that you appear to disagree with also.

So, do you have a particular quote in mind. Something that will lay this entire discussion to rest? I look forward to reading it, because I really want to know. The suspense is killing me!

Take care, everyone

[DH]

To be blunt, I think this notion of "blood atonement" is a bunch of nonsense. It's not scriptural and it is not, and never has been, official Church doctrine (as far as I know). If BY taught it, it was his own opinion. Jesus is our Savior--we cannot save ourselves. If we could save ourselves, we wouldn't need a Savior.

DH

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To be blunt, I think this notion of "blood atonement" is a bunch of nonsense. It's not scriptural and it is not, and never has been, official Church doctrine (as far as I know). If BY taught it, it was his own opinion. Jesus is our Savior--we cannot save ourselves. If we could save ourselves, we wouldn't need a Savior.

DH

Very true. It would seem to be this is BY own opinion on the matter. It seems BY does have some biblical support, utt it is not conclusive. I dont belive this to have ever been offical or practiced by the churh. Please please correct me if I am wrong.

[Zakuska]

To be blunt, I think this notion of "blood atonement" is a bunch of nonsense. It's not scriptural and it is not, and never has been, official Church doctrine (as far as I know). If BY taught it, it was his own opinion. Jesus is our Savior--we cannot save ourselves. If we could save ourselves, we wouldn't need a Savior.

DH

But the Lord cant save someone who doesnt want to be saved. What happens when he reaches down to pull you up and instead you spit in his face rather than offering him your hand?

[LifeOnaPlate]

That was the answer you were looking for? That's kind of strange. Maybe you should ask Zakuska to provide the quote you seem to be thinking of, since it is his interpretation of Young's sermon that you appear to disagree with also.

So, do you have a particular quote in mind. Something that will lay this entire discussion to rest? I look forward to reading it, because I really want to know. The suspense is killing me!

Take care, everyone

To be honest, I'm loving it just leaving it to the critics. I have gone and done the research, I found some very interesting quotes on the subject that somehow- through all these years, have never made it into the library of quote-mined nuggets compiled by the Tanners and their ilk, repeated ad nauseum by foes everywhere. The parroting that goes on in the anti-Mormon community is apparent; and the sources are wrested from context.

I admit this: there were some cartain thins Brigham, JM Grant, HC Kimball said that point toward a sort of "blood atonement." I haven't seen an anti-Mormon present the doctrine as taught in relation to ever instance, rather than a few seletec quotes. Additionally, the exonnerating quote remains a mystery to the parrots.

Polly wanna cracker? Then Polly gonna have to either find it, or wait.

[DH]

But the Lord cant save someone who doesnt want to be saved. What happens when he reaches down to pull you up and instead you spit in his face rather than offering him your hand?

Yes, but what does that have to do with blood atonement? We need to repent of our sins, not commit suicide!

DH

[soren]

Not really the answer I was looking for. More like "the reason I know about other quotes, but not the one's that would in any way vindicate Young's comments, is because I'm not interested in it enough to find out; my mind is made up and I am only looking for evidence to sustain what I already believe."

Well, that is easy. I do know about them. I have read the entirety of the first 3 1/2 volumes of the Journal of Discourses, which can be found online here:

www.journalofdiscourses.org.

I did it in a very naughty way: at my last job, I used to open up one sermon a day and read it during my spare time as the day progressed. (It wan't really so naught, since I always took short breaks and lunch.)

If you doubt this, I can at least demonstrate that I have not only only read the quotes you think I am hiding from but in fact thought about them and do not fear them. If you read my incediary comments on the "Official Apology" thread, you will note that I not only acknowedge that Young posited a theocratic kingdom for the exercise of blood atonement, but I am in fact the first person on that thread to raise the point.

So why didn't I mention it here as well? For the same reason Rhino said. It isn't that important; my objection to blood atonement is against the whole principle of the thing, not just the whens and wherefores of its practice: The only thing that can atone for sin is pure blood blood offered in the holy of holies. Sinners blood, being impure cannot even enter the holy of holies, let alone be offered there. No matter who you are, where you lived, or what sins you have ever commited, whether great or small, your blood cannot save you, but the blood of Jesus can. That truth is nothing less than the gospel itself.

I do however think that discussion of the quote you mention can shed some light on the topic, as it raises an valuable question. Do you know why Young went to such pains to teach a doctrine about something was was going to happen at a much later date? Why break out all that hoary rhetoric to tell people about a law that didn't even apply to them? It seems strange, does it not? I think the best answer (and I learned this from a FAIR article) is that Young, along with the other first presidency members, percieved a moral slackness in the congregation and desired to effect a reformation. The objective of the blood atonement preaching was to impress on the Latter-day Saints just what the danger and terror of sin was. One could validly compare it to the hellfire/purgatory preaching that Catholic priests have applied at times for the same purpose, though with one grave, and ultimate difference:

Conviction of sin is part of the gospel. It's not a part we like, but a part we need. Knowing that we are sinners, that we are "dead in sin," is a necessary first step in turning to Christ for our salvation. teaching about the horror of sin has value in impressing this fact upon people. But blood atonement misses this entirely, because it uses the conviction of sin to turn people away from Christ, and unto themselves for their hope. "Your sins are too deep for Jesus, but not too deep for your own blood." Those are not Young's very words, but that is the idea, is it not? If anything, this underrates sin. Any time I sin, I sin against a perfect, infinite Being, and I bear a guilt proportionate to the One whom I have offended. This makes sin vast, immeasurable in its damage, and far beyond my capacity to cleanse, since there is no part of me unstained by sin so as to be able to cleanse it. This is why in ancient Israel only a spotless lamb My sinful blood, you see, cannot atone for doing personal reading on the clock, let alone for a sin that is too deep for the blood of my own most pure Creator. If I thougth it could, I would feel much more comfortable about being a sinner.

[Zakuska]

Yes, but what does that have to do with blood atonement? We need to repent of our sins, not commit suicide!

DH

Commiting Suicide will do you no good. "unless its performed by proper priesthood authority"

Of course theirs always Judas.

[DH]

Commiting Suicide will do you no good. "unless its performed by proper priesthood authority"

LOL

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you doubt this, I can at least demonstrate that I have not only only read the quotes you think I am hiding from but in fact thought about them and do not fear them. If you read my incediary comments on the "Official Apology" thread, you will note that I not only acknowedge that Young posited a theocratic kingdom for the exercise of blood atonement, but I am in fact the first person on that thread to raise the point.

And your point is ridiculous. True, there are quotes that can be used for that position. There are quotes to be used against it as well. It seems you have been selective, as well.

Honestly, the hypocrisy is killing me. The freaking crusades, dude. The Spanish Inquisition. Come on.

So why didn't I mention it here as well? For the same reason Rhino said. It isn't that important; my objection to blood atonement is against the whole principle of the thing, not just the whens and wherefores of its practice: The only thing that can atone for sin is pure blood blood offered in the holy of holies.

Holy of holies? The Jewish temple?

Sinners blood, being impure cannot even enter the holy of holies, let alone be offered there. No matter who you are, where you lived, or what sins you have ever commited, whether great or small, your blood cannot save you, but the blood of Jesus can. That truth is nothing less than the gospel itself.

Who said blood atonement could fully save anyone? Or save anyone? It was about justice, not salvation.

I do however think that discussion of the quote you mention can shed some light on the topic, as it raises an valuable question. Do you know why Young went to such pains to teach a doctrine about something was was going to happen at a much later date? Why break out all that hoary rhetoric to tell people about a law that didn't even apply to them? It seems strange, does it not? I think the best answer (and I learned this from a FAIR article) is that Young, along with the other first presidency members, percieved a moral slackness in the congregation and desired to effect a reformation. The objective of the blood atonement preaching was to impress on the Latter-day Saints just what the danger and terror of sin was. One could validly compare it to the hellfire/purgatory preaching that Catholic priests have applied at times for the same purpose, though with one grave, and ultimate difference:

the Reformation had a lot to do with it, indeed.

Conviction of sin is part of the gospel. It's not a part we like, but a part we need. Knowing that we are sinners, that we are "dead in sin," is a necessary first step in turning to Christ for our salvation. teaching about the horror of sin has value in impressing this fact upon people. But blood atonement misses this entirely, because it uses the conviction of sin to turn people away from Christ, and unto themselves for their hope. "Your sins are too deep for Jesus, but not too deep for your own blood." Those are not Young's very words, but that is the idea, is it not?

According to some New Testament verses, therte is a point where no blood will help. And no, that isn't the gist if it. I'm preparing a thread on the topic.

If anything, this underrates sin. Any time I sin, I sin against a perfect, infinite Being, and I bear a guilt proportionate to the One whom I have offended. This makes sin vast, immeasurable in its damage, and far beyond my capacity to cleanse, since there is no part of me unstained by sin so as to be able to cleanse it. This is why in ancient Israel only a spotless lamb My sinful blood, you see, cannot atone for doing personal reading on the clock, let alone for a sin that is too deep for the blood of my own most pure Creator.

Agreed.

If I thougth it could, I would feel much more comfortable about being a sinner.

Well, speak for yourself, I guess. Also, when you keep selectively quoting, it only damages your credibility.

[cksalmon]

To be honest, I'm loving it just leaving it to the critics. I have gone and done the research, I found some very interesting quotes on the subject that somehow- through all these years, have never made it into the library of quote-mined nuggets compiled by the Tanners and their ilk, repeated ad nauseum by foes everywhere. The parroting that goes on in the anti-Mormon community is apparent; and the sources are wrested from context.

I admit this: there were some cartain thins Brigham, JM Grant, HC Kimball said that point toward a sort of "blood atonement." I haven't seen an anti-Mormon present the doctrine as taught in relation to ever instance, rather than a few seletec quotes. Additionally, the exonnerating quote remains a mystery to the parrots.

Polly wanna cracker? Then Polly gonna have to either find it, or wait.

This is a silly game you're playing. Stop it, please. CFR.

CKS

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is a silly game you're playing. Stop it, please. CFR.

CKS

I already said I'm preparing a thread on the subject. Patience, my friends, patience.

[rhinomelon]

I admit this: there were some cartain thins Brigham, JM Grant, HC Kimball said that point toward a sort of "blood atonement." I haven't seen an anti-Mormon present the doctrine as taught in relation to ever instance, rather than a few seletec quotes. Additionally, the exonnerating quote remains a mystery to the parrots.

Well, let's not be too hard on parrots. They are pretty cool birds, after all.

Honestly, I've never really delved into the blood atonement thing much. What early LDS did is much less important to me than what they taught. So I'm just going off of Zakuska's quotes, and his interpretation that seems to go against yours. If you do indeed have an "exonerating quote", I'm interested in seeing it, instead of hearing more blather about how I should really know it myself already (because I'm an expert on Mormon history, perhaps? ).

I call. Care to lay down your cards?

(I think he may be bluffing)

Who said blood atonement could fully save anyone? Or save anyone? It was about justice, not salvation.

I disagree. Zakuska's quotes make it pretty clear (at least to me) that Young was referring to shedding one's own blood to atone for sins that Christ's blood could not cover, in order that one may be saved.

"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....

"And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood,

You can disagree with our interpretation based on your secret evidence, but it is really silly to pretend that our interpretation cannot possibly be obtained by reading the selection posted.

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, let's not be too hard on parrots. They are pretty cool birds, after all.

Honestly, I've never really delved into the blood atonement thing much. What early LDS did is much less important to me than what they taught. So I'm just going off of Zakuska's quotes, and his interpretation that seems to go against yours. If you do indeed have an "exonerating quote", I'm interested in seeing it, instead of hearing more blather about how I should really know it myself already (because I'm an expert on Mormon history, perhaps? ).

I call. Care to lay down your cards?

(I think he may be bluffing)

See my last post, above.

I disagree. Zakuska's quotes make it pretty clear (at least to me) that Young was referring to shedding one's own blood to atone for sins that Christ's blood could not cover, in order that one may be saved.

You can disagree with our interpretation based on your secret evidence, but it is really silly to pretend that our interpretation cannot possibly be obtained by reading the selection posted.

Take care, everyone

Again, see post above.

[soren]

And your point is ridiculous. True, there are quotes that can be used for that position. There are quotes to be used against it as well. It seems you have been selective, as well.

and

Well, speak for yourself, I guess. Also, when you keep selectively quoting, it only damages your credibility.

It would damage my credibility if you were to provide evidence that I have read selectively rather than just accuse me again. If your accusation is true, this should not be too difficult. I believe that in disputing faith propositions, the one who defends his faith always gets the benefit of the doubt. Thus, if I say, â??Brigham Young taught, in tandem with his first presidency counselors, a doctrine of human sacrifice to cleanse sins with impure blood apart from the atonement of Christâ? and you say, â??No, he didnâ??t,â? it is not you, but I, who carry the burden of proof. All you need to do is give a plausible interpretation of the evidence that is consistent and warranted by the actual text of Youngâ??s sermons. (It would also be fair to bring in material from Grant and Kimballâ??s sermons that could throw light on Youngâ??s.) If you say, â??True, there are quotes that can be used for that position. There are quotes to be used against it as well,â? show me the quotes you have in mind, and show how they have a meaningful impact on how we should understand the text I have cited. Otherwise, withdraw your accusation. The only standard you have to meet is plausibility.

What I have claimed is not â??ridiculous.â? It may be hard to believe because it is disturbing, but Iâ??m not the one who came up with blood atonement. In interpreting blood atonement as human sacrifice, I have hardly interpreted it at all, so plain and straightforward are Youngâ??s own words on the subject. The only interpretation I have done is synthesize two ideas: that blood atonement is a sacrifice and that the victim is a human. Is either point disputable? The quote I used is so far from being isolated from context that it actually expresses the central concept in Youngâ??s whole blood atonement teaching. It is, as it were, his thesis statement. It is not ancillary or metaphorical, and it certainly isnâ??t theoretical. It is not softened by any context, and I could have provided even more explicit quotes. I would go so far as to say that any attempt to interpret Young that avoids paying close attention to the specifically sacrificial principles underlying blood atonement does not in fact interpret him at all, but simply avoids the text.

When you can produce context than can plausibly explain what Young is saying without involving human sacrifice, then you can accuse me of selective reading.

Honestly, the hypocrisy is killing me. The freaking crusades, dude. The Spanish Inquisition. Come on.

You might also have mentioned the St. Bartholomewâ??s Day Massacre, a day as ignominious in Catholic history as the Mountain Meadows Massacre is in Mormon. Having a discussion on these topics would cause this thread to get out of hand, and would be better taken up on a separate one. But to answer in brief, I would defend the Crusades as just wars in legitimate defense of the Christian world with some reservations especially about the later Crusades, and I would argue that the Inquisitions, though bad, are not grounds to impeach the whole Church. In reality though, there are Catholics around on this site who would give you a much better discussion of these topics than I. 3DOP in particular comes to mind.

Yet I must also answer to the charge of hypocrisy, which is your real point. The presupposition of this charge seems to be that were I asked to defend various acts of iniquity in the Catholic Church, I would need to rely on many premises and standards that I deny to Mormons in the case of blood atonement. This misconstrues the whole point of my argument, for the issues you raise are all related to the topic of sin in the Church: How can horrible deeds be done by so many members of the true Church of God, and with the approbation of their leadership? And itâ??s a very meaningful question! Apologists for most religions must deal with this question on some level, and Catholics are far from being an exception. Therefore, I will willingly allow Mormons to use the same standards to defend their Church from charges of historical wrongdoing and with the same benefit of the doubt that I would claim in defense of my own. But that is not the issue I have raised, not at all. I have not accused the LDS Church of killing people. I have not accused Brigham Young of killing people. I claim Brigham Young and his first presidency counselors taught a false doctrine that devalues life and can only warp the souls of people who believe in it. To this, I add that it is no surprise if violent deeds ensue among the followers of men who teach a belief so dishonoring to the value of life. Those are the limits of my claim. As to how far that impacts the credibility of the LDS Church as a whole, or Brigham Young as a prophet, I have made no comment. Truly, I doubt I could provide any special insight into that question, pro or con, that any other person couldnâ??t think of alone.

Yet it does not surprise me that you see the issue as you do. For good reason, the main effort of the LDS defense of blood atonement is focused on responding to the obnoxious, false charge that people were killed by the LDS Church. Indeed, so pervasive are such lame accusations, I have never had an easy time explaining to Latter-day Saints that my objection to blood atonement is different from that. I keep hearing answers like â??Blood atonement was never carried out,â? â??It is for a future time,â? or â??Those instances where it may have been done were not done with the consent of any General Authorities.â? These are true statements with which I already agree; they are important, indeed vital, to bear in mind when considering the question of sin in the Church, but they do not address the issue I have raised:

My dispute is not with the practice of blood atonement, but with the underlying theology. After all, if the theology were true, I would not object even if it were put in practice; I would applaud it.

Frankly, I am glad, indeed very glad, that blood atonement is not official LDS teaching and that church members are not bound to believe in it. I don't think personally that this is a very consistent stance, but I prefer the inconsistency to the other option. I fear much less for your souls on that account.

Who said blood atonement could fully save anyone? Or save anyone? It was about justice, not salvation.

Young said it:

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.

and again:

You are aware that when brother Cummings came to the point of loving our neighbours as ourselves, he could say yes or no as the case might be, that is true. But I want to connect it with the doctrine you read in the Bible. When will we love our neighbour as ourselves? In the first place, Jesus said that no man hateth his own flesh. It is admitted by all that every person loves himself. Now if we do rightly love ourselves, we want to be saved and continue to exist, we want to go into the kingdom where we can enjoy eternity and see no more sorrow nor death. This is the desire of every person who believes in God. Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, "shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods? All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the sheding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing; his language is left as it is for those to read who have the Spirit to discern between truth and error; it was so left for those who can discern the things of God. Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness.

Note that this work â??to save themâ? happens in a situation where Young has stipulated that Christâ??s blood â??does not operate.â? With Christâ??s blood thus excluded, how can we avoid attributing salvation to the sinnerâ??s blood, which is the only blood offered for that sin?

To my knowledge, Young makes no reference to justice, in the sense of capital punishment, that his modern defenders read into his words. Itâ??s all about cleansing sins for salvation. The closest he comes that I can think of is that famous bit about the javelin, but even then justice, in the normal sense, is not the main locus of Youngâ??s thought.

the Reformation had a lot to do with it, indeed.

But that is just my point. Preaching blood atonement is not a way to promote a true reformation of anyone. The point of reformation is to save souls, and blood atonement cannot do that. It might change peopleâ??s behavior by terrifying them of lethal punishment, but a teaching that can effect the circumcision of the heart, that elevates morality from servile obedience to free and sanctified action, must teach reliance on Christâ??s blood and its omnipotent mercy. Yet this is precisely what blood atonement denies. If the members of the First Presidency wanted to effect a real reformation in the morals of their flock, theyâ??d have done better to turn to Isaiah: â??Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.â? This is a miracle only Christâ??s blood can achieve, if we pay any attention to the New Testament at all.

Recall the scenario I posited earlier: A man has sinned; he needs Christ, but because of blood atonement, he does not have faith that Christâ??s blood can cure him. So he has his throat cut and dies in his own worthless blood, embracing a false hope even at point of death.

Unless blood atonement really were true, is this not indeed the conclusion that would follow? Perhaps you have never thought of it this way before, and perhaps that is why my claims seem wild and crazy to you, but is it really so far out? For a man who dies in this way dies denying that Christ can save him. As far as I can suppose, unless he were moved by Godâ??s grace to repent in the instant of his death, as is genuinely possible, obedience to blood atonement would cost him his salvation. Whether blood atonement were carried out in the nineteenth century, today, or in a kingdom yet to come, this consequence would be the same.

Holy of holies? The Jewish temple?

In the case of Christâ??s atonement, I refer to the Holy of Holies in the Heavenly Temple as described in Hebrews 6-10. The Jewish Temple under the Old Law was a figure of the Heavenly Temple where the resurrected Christ now discharges his priesthood office having entered the inner sanctuary with his own blood. Try reading those chapters in Hebrews and ask yourself: Could I, a sinner, do that with my blood?