Blood Atonement

[CQUIRK]

Have to admit-

Personally, being executed by firing squad seems more humane and less painful then the Electric Chair, or the Gas Chamber.

-If you ever read the part in Stephen King's The Green Mile about how Eduard "Del" Delacroix's execution goes horribly wrong, then you would know what I mean.

[selek]

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, I want you to parse your quote for me.

Ask yourself the following questions:

To whom was the Lord speaking?

Is there anything that separates those to whom the Lord was speaking from Babylon at large?

Would that difference (between those to whom the Lord was speaking) and the rest of the world imply a different set of standard?

Once you've chewed through all of that, please provide a specific example of a murderer (for that's the actual context of the Scripture above) who has been explicitly and finally denied forgiveness.....

....even the perpetrators of the MMM have had their covenental ordinances restored on the presumption that God himself will judge.

[All-Seeing Eye]

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

Apparently the Okies believe in blood atonement, too.

But only if lethal injection and electrocution are held to be unconstitutional, right?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution#ok

On a more specific note, is the explanation for John D. Lee's "Rosmos Anderson" account simply that Lee was lying? Is there even any evidence that a man named Rosmos Anderson lived in Utah during the time? Would the LDS Church have his membership record if he had?

[USU78]

'78: 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?

No.

Care to eschew the personal and get back to the issue?

What is the difference between the formerly murderous Ammonites in the BoM receiving forgiveness of sin and the D&C directive you previously quotemined?

If you don't believe there is a difference, please explain why not.

[rockslider]

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

At a quick glance, there does not seem to be a lot of distance between a life for a life (eye for eye) and blood atonement.

It would be interesting to see how many who denounce blood atonement would support capital punishment

[BCSpace]

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.

That is incorrect. The same governing principle for doctrine, the equality of the FP and Qo12 has been around since 1835.

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.

I don't think so. I do think some believed it so strongly it was taught as doctrine and others believed on their words, but I'm not seeing any evidence of it as a doctrine.

Some were even excommunicated for openly rejecting Adam-God.

Are you sure it was that? Adam-God never was a doctrine nor was it ever taught by BY.

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

But that's always been in the context of selfishly limiting your family. However, these are very minor as I've implied.

[All-Seeing Eye]

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

Someone should clarify the Wikipedia entry on Blood Atonement, which now states, in part:

On Friday, June 18, 2010, murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad in Draper, Utah. He explained he chose this method of execution because of his "Mormon heritage".

I do note that "because of Mormon heritage" does not necessarily imply "for reasons of blood atonement," and I also note that the Wikipedia statement appears to be unsourced.

There is this, though:

Then in 1996, he told the Deseret News he would go so far as to sue for his right to die by firing squad

[Tango]

No.

Care to eschew the personal and get back to the issue?

What is the difference between the formerly murderous Ammonites in the BoM receiving forgiveness of sin and the D&C directive you previously quotemined?

If you don't believe there is a difference, please explain why not.

The only difference I see is a conflict. Meaning the BoM was written with the full enjoyment of the atonement to entice and snare biblical Christians, and the latter, DC, was written as a directive of a man, a delusional one at that, as an act of bondage for its members. Is there a quote of any authoritative figure that specifically states the doctrines of the church only apply to its members?

[mbh26]

...even the perpetrators of the MMM have had their covenental ordinances restored on the presumption that God himself will judge.

How do you know that was the reason? God himself will judge everyone, yet not everyone has their covenants officially restored, correct? Why some people and not others?

I would like to point out that I was taught by our Bishop in Youth Sunday School a couple decades ago that the only way to repent of murder for anyone (member or nonmember) was to willfully submit to captial punishment. Basically I was taught as a youth that my Church believed in and supported capital punishement, almost in the same way it condemned abortion. I don't think my experience was the exception, but rather the rule for most of us. And if most of the Church was teaching it, it's not really fair to contend that this is not Mormon doctrine. Perhaps that was the reason for the "official" statement. I'm happy to see an "official" statement from the Church on anything. It's nice to see them take a firm stand on an issue rather than continue to try to reach out and mainstream in an overly diverse manner.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The only difference I see is a conflict.

Do tell. A conflict of what???

Meaning the BoM was written with the full enjoyment of the atonement to entice and snare biblical Christians

So since the LDS are Christians and biblical ones at that, I don't quite follow. Oh I see, you mean to say that the BoM was writen with the full enjoyment of the atonement to entice and "snare" traditional Christians. Well you got part of it right. It is kind of hard to snare people when the book only speaks of comming to Christ. Those sneaky mormons.

, and the latter, DC, was written as a directive of a man, a delusional one at that, as an act of bondage for its members.

As one of my favorite actors once said in a movie, "What a vivid imagination you have".

Is there a quote of any authoritative figure that specifically states the doctrines of the church only apply to its members?

I suggest that you stop being.... well..... behind the curve and actually read the BoM. There in lies the answer to you question.

[kamenraider]

D&C 132:26 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.

This says that those who receive the second anointing and then break their covenants in some way shall be destroyed in the flesh. It doesn't exactly say by having their blood shed though, but that would presumably be preferable:

President [John] Taylor: What is it to be destroyed in the flesh? What does that mean [sign of the Priesthood]? You all know. What does that mean [another Sign of the Priesthood]? You all know. Now if that was carried out-

Coun. [Daniel H.] Wells: Is that what is meant by being destroyed in the flesh?

President Taylor: I think it would be pretty near.

Coun. Wells: Well, cutting off the Church doesn't pay the penalty.

Prest. Taylor: leave them in the hands of God, or in the hands of the devil.

--Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, 1883, Pioneer Press, Salt Lake City, 1992, pg.41.

Brigham Young said (see Wilford Woodruff's Journal 5/1/1865) that "Parley P. Pratt's blood was spilt for adultery." He had taken a plural wife without proper authorization in 1846 and by so doing Brigham Young said he had "committed an insult on the Holy Priesthood." Well, Parley P. Pratt presumably repented, but since he had received his second anointing prior to his sin, he still was supposed to be "destroyed in the flesh," which the Lord must have allowed to take place in 1857 so that he could yet enter into his exaltation.

[Stargazer]

I've been enjoying the back and forth here on this topic, and now I'll just toss in my two cents.

As far as blood atonement is concerned, and I'm sure this won't settle anything, it seems to me that in setting the firing squad as the method of execution, this verse is complied with:

6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (Old Testament | Genesis 9:6)

There's no need to go into "blood atonement" (for Jesus blood hath atoned for us all) to explain it. All the other explanations that have grown up over the years in trying to explain the firing squad seem to me to be exactly nothing more nor less than looking beyond the mark. And some of those teachings that grew out of it are so long in the tooth that some of us think that the age of a tradition has more weight than it's basis in truth.

And I believe I echo some others here when I say that if were to be put to death, my preferred method would be firing squad. Of course, I'd also lobby for old age, but failing that...

Another thing that has been bugging me, which is only tangential to this matter. In the news reports it was said that one of the weapons used by the firing squad was loaded with a blank so that each shooter would have reason to think he might not have helped kill the convicted man. That's ridiculous. Anyone who has ever fired blank ammunition knows darned good and well that there's almost no recoil with blanks, and the difference gets more pronounced with larger calibers. The only people who don't know which one had the blank are the ones who weren't pulling the trigger.

[Obiwan]

Are you sure it was that? Adam-God never was a doctrine nor was it ever taught by BY.

Exactly, most people but especially anti's including sadly some small # of naive mormons (they all think he was teaching the anti version of the concept), don't even realize that what Brigham was teaching IS STILL taught in the Temple today, and it had nothing to do with "Heavenly Father/The Most High God". He was almost always clear that he was talking about Adam/Michael when he used the so-called "offensive" words. Brigham was simply teaching the Temple over the pulpit like he often did.

[scooby]

In the news reports it was said that one of the weapons used by the firing squad was loaded with a blank so that each shooter would have reason to think he might not have helped kill the convicted man. That's ridiculous. Anyone who has ever fired blank ammunition knows darned good and well that there's almost no recoil with blanks, and the difference gets more pronounced with larger calibers. The only people who don't know which one had the blank are the ones who weren't pulling the trigger.

My understanding is that they didn't use a blank. They used a wax bullet designed to give the same recoil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/18/utah-execution-ronnie-lee-gardner

"Four of the rifles were loaded with a single live bullet. The fifth contained an "ineffective" round

[David T]

Exactly, most people but especially anti's including sadly some small # of naive mormons (they all think he was teaching the anti version of the concept), don't even realize that what Brigham was teaching IS STILL taught in the Temple today, and it had nothing to do with "Heavenly Father/The Most High God". He was almost always clear that he was talking about Adam/Michael when he used the so-called "offensive" words. Brigham was simply teaching the Temple over the pulpit like he often did.

He was teaching a far different interpretation of the Temple and the personages presented therein than is generally understood today.

The records show very clearly that he really did teach that Elohim was the father of Jehovah who in turn was the father of Adam/Michael, a Resurrected being, the heavenly father of our spirits, who then fell to give his children mortal tabernacles. (the same for Eve, Michael's exalted wife who fell with him - Exalted being in his mind became the Adam and Eve of their children's mortal probation. This idea still made it through correlation somehow in the TPC:Brigham Young manual, in the quote, "Eve was a name or title conferred upon our first mother, because she was actually to be the mother of all the human beings who should live upon this earth. I am looking upon a congregation designed to be just such beings (MS, 31:267)." ) This was controversial when he taught it, and was the source of much contention in the presiding quorums of the Church at the time. The 1916 The Father and the Son was issued as an official response years after the fact to correct and standardize the terminology of Elohim as our Heavenly Father, and Jehovah as his son Jesus Christ, due to some of Brigham's teachings on the subject still circulating. This is highly documented.

Individuals who deny this do far more to hurt the cause than help it, methinks. Brigham Young did not teach 21st Century Mormon Orthodoxy. I believe he made many conclusions that were incorrect. Yet I still sustain him as a prophet who tirelessly served the Church and Kingdom of God, and did incredible good for the cause of Christ and the Restored Gospel.

[Tango]

Do tell. A conflict of what???

So since the LDS are Christians and biblical ones at that, I don't quite follow. Oh I see, you mean to say that the BoM was writen with the full enjoyment of the atonement to entice and "snare" traditional Christians. Well you got part of it right. It is kind of hard to snare people when the book only speaks of comming to Christ. Those sneaky mormons.

As one of my favorite actors once said in a movie, "What a vivid imagination you have".

I suggest that you stop being.... well..... behind the curve and actually read the BoM. There in lies the answer to you question.

So since the LDS are Christians and biblical ones at that, I don't quite follow

Exactly, you do not follow because you claim something that you know is false; a biblical Christian. Sorry you can spew, hem and haw all you want, but 99.9999% of the world knows without a dobut Mormonism is nothing but a man made cult.

You are banned from the thread for repeated flaming. If you want to post here express disageement respectfully.

[wenglund]

Exactly, you do not follow because you claim something that you know is false; a biblical Christian. Sorry you can spew, hem and haw all you want, but 99.9999% of the world knows without a dobut Mormonism is nothing but a man made cult.

I sense some real defensiveness and hostility behind your name-calling and juvenile banter. I just hope that you may one day turn to Christ for peace and security and love. I can attest to it being a liberating and most edifying experience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[kamenraider]

Just thought I'd point out that there seems to be two sins that aren't covered by the atonement; shedding innocent blood (this would not necessarily include all murders, but the First Presidency is to judge each case where a murderer applies for baptism) and "defecting to perdition"/blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (which indicates open rebellion and unrepentance to the point that a person makes war against Christ and his representatives even to the point of wanting them dead, all the while knowing perfectly well that they are right and he is wrong which means also that they are well past desiring to repent anymore). These would need to be atoned for by the individual, but that would be different than those mentioned in D&C 132 as being "destroyed in the flesh" because they are people who have not commited either of these two sins.

Thought I'd post this link which explains it in more detail: LINK.

Also, about Adam-God, I don't mean to derail but check out THIS THREAD.

I'd just like to add regarding my comment in post #23 of Consiglieri's thread I linked to above, that Eve could occupy (starting on a prior world) the same position toward Adam that Mary does to Heavenly Father here, having been sealed to him there.

[daz2]

I think there is a difference of opinion among the Brethren as to whether all forms of murder are forgivable. President Packer says everything except defecting to perdition is forgivable. As noted above, Elder Scott (and the late Elder McConkie) state that shedding innocent blood by a Church member is not. (President Kimball also took a hard line on the issue.)

I would add to the contest of opinions that Elder Andersen came down last year of President Packer's side (and dropped a footnote to the Packer talk): "Except for the sins of those few who choose perdition after having known a fulness, there is no sin that cannot be forgiven." Neil L. Andersen,

[Stargazer]

It is actually more Biblical (not that an incomplete or mistranslated original source couldn't trip us up at this point), that the only unforgivable is the sin against the Holy Ghost.

Incidentally, there is some atheist video on YouTube I saw a few days ago in which a number of people use the words "I deny..." and append various denials to it, such as "I deny the existence of God", with some of the apparently more sophisticated deniers making a point of saying they deny the Holy Ghost, because that's theoretically unforgivable. Not the way they're doing it, certainly, but they apparently think that gives them some extra ooomph.

[mbh26]

Just out of curiosity, what are your opinions on capital punishment? Is it right or wrong? Is Mormonism as different from Catholicism on this issue as it seems to me?

I remember reading Joseph Fielding Smith's book "Doctrines of Salvation." I got the impression that he thought adulterers needed to be executed as well, but since the state law would not currently allow that (like not allowing polygamy), the Lord would require some other form of atonement. Do any of you agree with him? Would the Mormon Church carry out executions of adulterers if it were a theocracy?

[mfbukowski]

I think there is a difference of opinion among the Brethren as to whether all forms of murder are forgivable. President Packer says everything except defecting to perdition is forgivable. As noted above, Elder Scott (and the late Elder McConkie) state that shedding innocent blood by a Church member is not. (President Kimball also took a hard line on the issue.)

I would add to the contest of opinions that Elder Andersen came down last year of President Packer's side (and dropped a footnote to the Packer talk): "Except for the sins of those few who choose perdition after having known a fulness, there is no sin that cannot be forgiven." Neil L. Andersen,

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Exactly, you do not follow because you claim something that you know is false; a biblical Christian. Sorry you can spew, hem and haw all you want, but 99.9999% of the world knows without a dobut Mormonism is nothing but a man made cult.

ANd you accuse falsely. And I don't care what 99.99% of the world says, what they say has no relevance to my salvation. (So you are claiming that 99.99% of the world is Evangelical? Lol!)

I simply think you have made up another worthless stat. And I quite franlky think you are making things up. You do not hold the copy right on the title of Christian.

Tell me, biblically speaking, what does one have to do to be a Christian?

I also see you failed to respond to my other statements. Bravo.

[kamenraider]

Oops. meant to edit a typo in a post above and clicked the wrong button.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oops. meant to edit a typo in a post above and clicked the wrong button.

Glad to see I am not the only one that does this stuff.