Blood Atonement

[Thinking]

The LDS Church released a statement on Wednesday (published Thursday in the Deseret News).

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 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.

Does is not a doctrine mean never was a doctrine?

[BCSpace]

Does is not a doctrine mean never was a doctrine?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a doctrine that was but now isn't. I know they exist, but they are very rare. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to indicate that "blood atonement", as the critics describe it, ever was a doctrine. Blood Atonement, in the sense that Jesus Atoned for our sins with his blood, has always been a doctrine.

[Ariarates]

What brought this on? Also, I can't find the statement on the Church's official website?

[Thinking]

What brought this on? Also, I can't find the statement on the Church's official website?

I'm guessing that it has something to do with the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner.

[Obiwan]

Sounds like just a "press release", not an official statement from the Presidency.

Blood Atonement does seem scriptural, and applicable in certain cases. But, I guess it would be true that that doesn't necessarily make it "doctrinal".

[Tango]

A bigger issue I see is this part -"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."

That is nonsense. The church doctrine and specifically teaches that Murder is NOT covered under the atonement. Now who is being decietful?

[the narrator]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a doctrine that was but now isn't. I know they exist, but they are very rare.

That is because we have today carefully defined 'doctrine' to exclude those teachings of the past that we don't want to see as doctrine.

If you had lived in the late 19th century, however, then blood atonement, Adam-God, and other (now-heretical) teachings would have been considered doctrine. Some were even excommunicated for openly rejecting Adam-God.

Move into the 20th century and we have things like a prohibition of birth-control that was considered a doctrine.

[David T]

A bigger issue I see is this part -"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."

That is nonsense. The church doctrine and specifically teaches that Murder is NOT covered under the atonement. Now who is being decietful?

I think there are significant cases in the Book of Mormon that show that this isn't as clearcut a case as you might think it is.

[USU78]

The church doctrine and specifically teaches that Murder is NOT covered under the atonement.

C.F.R.

Where specifically in the Standard Works is this taught?

[Tango]

I think there are significant cases in the Book of Mormon that show that this isn't as clearcut a case as you might think it is.

And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. " (D&C 42: 18)

[Tango]

C.F.R.

Where specifically in the Standard Works is this taught?

Wow..are you LDS?

[USU78]

Wow..are you LDS?

I think you know already. What nimrod unacquainted with things LDS would know a Standard Work from a non-Standard one?

I fully expected your next prior post's mined quote, yet hoped against hope you would somehow account for the Ammonites in your Algebra.

Care to give it a whirl?

[David T]

And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. " (D&C 42: 18)

Referring to Church members who have received a witness of the Holy Ghost, and have performed this act knowingly against that light and knowledge. It does not have reference to non-members.

[paulpatter]

The LDS Church released a statement on Wednesday (published Thursday in the Deseret News).

Does is not a doctrine mean never was a doctrine?

The following from Wikipedia is consistent with the Church's statement: "In Mormonism, blood atonement is a controversial doctrine that teaches that murder is so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Thus, for a person who has committed these sins to achieve godhood, they must have their blood shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering. Originally taught by Brigham Young, possibly constructed from the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr., the doctrine is still recognized within Mormon fundamentalism; however, the doctrine is not presently in force within mainstream Mormonism [underlining added]."

[Tango]

Referring to Church members who have received a witness of the Holy Ghost, and have performed this act knowingly against that light and knowledge. It does not have reference to non-members.

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."

And yet the church posted a statement including ALL people....church memembers and non-...keep the spins coming..I love it-

[Tango]

I think you know already. What nimrod unacquainted with things LDS would know a Standard Work from a non-Standard one?

I fully expected your next prior post's mined quote, yet hoped against hope you would somehow account for the Ammonites in your Algebra.

Care to give it a whirl?

A little behind the curve aren't ya?

[daz2]

"I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ."

Boyd K. Packer,

[S.Ferreira]

I'm guessing that it has something to do with the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner.

I think you're right. Especially given what Will Bagley said on NPR, which I heard on my commute home yesterday...and I don't live in Utah, so I'm guessing a lot of people accross the US heard this.

Utah historian Will Bagley says the reason this method of execution exists is rooted in Utah's history as a Mormon sanctuary. "I think we need to be honest about it. We have the last firing squads in the country as a legacy of Mormon theology," Bagley says.

Some early Mormon leaders believed in blood atonement for the most egregious sins. "To atone for those, Jesus' blood didn't count. You had to shed your own blood," Bagley says.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has since renounced any connection to blood atonement. And the belief has all but disappeared among Utahns today

[Tango]

"I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ."

Boyd K. Packer,

[blueadept]

I'm guessing that it has something to do with the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner.

With the execution of Ronnie Gardner, there's lots of articles from other newspapers of why Utah would use firing squads. Here's what I read today from the LA Times

It has persisted in Utah as a vestige of the old Mormon belief of blood atonement for sins, she said, which is why the Beehive State has been the only one to use it since the reinstatement of capital punishment.

While I may have a personal opinion about the issue of 'blood atonement' in regards to LDS history due to talking with my LDS relatives who live in Draper, UT, I prefer to not engage in this topic. The news media is though. Since there are a handful of inmates that my choose this form of execution, this repeated outsider's viewpoint of blood atonement will continue to be brought up. I'm surprised this topic isn't being discussed more than it is today.

[Vance]

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."

And yet the church posted a statement including ALL people....church memembers and non-...keep the spins coming..I love it-

And just what, pray tell, does "salvation" mean in this context?

Does it mean "exaltation"?

Does it mean "resurrection"?

Please, please, Tango, tell us.

[Bernard Gui]

Bagley is wrong. Oklahoma still holds firing squads as a method of execution.

Apparently the Okies believe in blood atonement, too.

Utah has discontinued firing squads except for a few convicts who were grandfathered in.

It is still their choice.

Gardner chose this method for reasons other than blood atonement. According to his

daughter, "He believed in an eye for an eye." Since he took lives with a firearm, he believed

he should die by firearm.

So much misinformation, so little time.

Bernard

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think you're right. Especially given what Will Bagley said on NPR, which I heard on my commute home yesterday...and I don't live in Utah, so I'm guessing a lot of people accross the US heard this.

Will Bagley can take his opinion and shove it. Blood atonement? Seriously. Other states have lethal injection, is that becuase they believe in blood atonement too? Having a fireing sqaud as a choice of capital punishment has nothing to do with blood atonement. If we really believed in blood atonement we would use a javalin to kill offenders of the law.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bagley is wrong. Oklahoma still holds firing squads as a method of execution.

Apparently the Okies believe in blood atonement, too.

Utah has discontinued firing squads except for a few convicts who were grandfathered in.

It is still their choice.

Gardner chose this method for reasons other than blood atonement. According to his

daughter, "He believed in an eye for an eye." Since he took lives with a firearm, he believed

he should die by firearm.

So much misinformation, so little time.

Bernard

What you said. Great point.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

nm