There Are Sins...

[LifeOnaPlate]

and

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.

Thread is forthcoming.

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.

Thread is forthcoming. Out of curiosity, all your blood atonement quotes were found by you, as you read the JoD, and no other source?

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.

Are you suggesting such behavior is limited to Mormons, or that the Catholic Church is exempt from this phenomenon?

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:

Why do you think I'm preparing a thread on the subject rather than merely casting off the arguments with your above suggestions? I apologize I'm not at the beck and call of everyone who wants to be "in the know" on the subject, but gimme a break, I'm working on 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.

Thanks? I'm not sure why we're still talking about it if you don't believe it is a true doctrine held by the Church.

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.

I suppose you've never considered such to be so in light of say- the people who died in the flood, or the slaughter of entire peoples by the children of Israel. Brigham didn't view death as a terrible thing, nor as something to seek. Death was death.

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.

Out of curiosity, who is Cummings and what did he say?

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?

Does Christ's blood operate for those who willingly reject and crucify Him afresh? The complaint seems to be that BY was somehow limiting the power of the atonement of Christ. Do you believe the atonement is unconditional for all men? Do you believe those who reject Christ can benefit fully from the atonement? If not, you also believe in a "limited" atonement, in the sense that there are limitations to what it can do. It seems the real argument, then, becomes what those limitations are.

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 javelin thing also dealt with crimes of passion, imo. You assume that blood atonement would guarantee one salvation. As you know, the afterlife in LDS theology isn't a dichotomy of heaven and hell. This comes into play with this particular theory of Pres. Young.

But that is just my point. Preaching blood atonement is not a way to promote a true reformation of anyone.

Is that an absolute truth or an opinion? I tend to agree, but there are bits in the Bible, mostly the Old Testament, which I also take issue with, and I'm not ready to cast off the Bible on their account.

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.

Typically, the teachings of the Church fall in line with that reasoning. Blood atonement being the exception.

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.

God will look upon the heart. Why presume to seal the fate of your imaginary victim?

Unless blood atonement really were true, is this not indeed the conclusion that would follow?

Perhaps for you.

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.

It seems more far out because I've not heard of a case where someone killed themself based on blood atonement. Should they do so I would imagine there was more to the story than just a lack of faith in Christ.

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?

It's a good point. Again, thread forthcoming. It may be awhile, but it will come. Patience.