Blood Atonement

[Zakuska]

Some intresting verses on Blood atonement which may shed some more light on what exactly BY ment.

Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.

— Numbers 35:33 (NIV)

The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.

— Genesis 4:10-11 (ESV)

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

— Genesis 9:6 (ESV)

http://en.wikipedia....hall_not_murder

If I'm not mistaken Murder was one of the sins with which BY linked the Blood Atonement doctrine.

Being "destroyed in the flesh" for violation of celestial marriage covenants

The most immediate precursor to the blood atonement doctrine stems from a controversial section of Mormon scripture dictated by Smith in 1843 commanding the practice of plural marriage (D&C 132). This revelation stated that once a man and a woman enter the "New and Everlasting Covenant" (a celestial marriage), and it is "sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise" (which Smith later taught was accomplished through the second anointing ritual), that they are guaranteed to become gods in the afterlife no matter what sins or blasphemies they commit, so long as they "commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood," and they do not commit the unpardonable sin of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." If a sealed person shed innocent blood, they would suffer the fate of David, who was redeemed, but fell short of his exaltation, and did not become a god (D&C 132:39). If a sealed person committed the unpardonable sin, they would become a son of perdition. According to early Mormon teachings, the unpardonable sin consisted of entering the New and Everlasting Covenant, and then falling away to become an "apostate."

However, if a sealed and anointed person broke their covenants to any extent short of murder or the unpardonable sin, they would still gain their exaltation and become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, but would be "destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption" (D&C 132:26). The revelation did not, however, specify the mechanism by which such people would be "destroyed in the flesh," and it did not indicate whether that "redemption" would be the result of the sinner's own blood or the result of the atonement of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia....Blood_atonement

If an unsolved Murder happend, and the murderer was not found, an Heifer was used to atone for the land and its blood was shed to atone for the unsolved murder.

From the first link:

The Torah had the expectation that capital crimes would be investigated thoroughly, and moral guilt was attached to failure to investigate crimes thoroughly or failure to give testimony when a call was made for witnesses.[20] The understanding of bloodguilt also required a procedure to make atonement for unsolved murder. If a dead body was found lying in a field, the elders and judges were to carefully determine the distance to the closest town, and the elders of the nearest town were to break a heifer’s neck in a prescribed manner and location.[21]

Then all the elders of the town nearest the body shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, and they shall declare: "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Accept this atonement for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, O Lord, and do not hold your people guilty of the blood of an innocent man." And the bloodshed will be atoned for. So you will purge from yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood, since you have done what is right in the eyes of the Lord.

— Deuteronomy 21:6-9 (NIV)

Edited October 29, 2011 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

There was only one blood atonement necessary, and that one happened 2000 years ago.

[Zakuska]

There was only one blood atonement necessary, and that one happened 2000 years ago.

If Christs blood was the only necessary blood to be spilt then there was no reason for the anicent Israelites to cleans the land by blood atonement for murder.

Does Christs blood cover "covenant breakers? Apparently not...

Heb 10

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Because they tread Christ's precious blood under their feet.

Even Christ himself declared the death penatly for murder... AFTER his ressurection.

Revelation 13:10

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Zakuska

[Cobalt-70]

Even Christ himself declared the death penatly for murder... AFTER his ressurection.

Revelation 13:10

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

This part of Revelation was not about blood atonement or even about capital punishment in general. This is one example of a horrible translation in the KJV. Look at how it appears in the NIV, starting in verse 9, and presented like the poetry that it is:

He who has an ear, let him hear.

If anyone is to go into captivity,

into captivity he will go.

If anyone is to be killed with the sword,

with the sword he will be killed.

This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

All the other modern translations put it similarly. So you can see, the KJV gets it 180 degrees wrong.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

If I'm not mistaken Murder was one of the sins with which BY linked the Blood Atonement doctrine.

I see the "being destroyed in the flesh" doctrine as being slightly different than blood atonement. Blood atonement means that a human sacrifice (of you) is performed to pay for the sins which Jesus' Atonement does not cover. The "being destroyed in the flesh" doctrine is, as I see it, less about atonement than it is about retribution. Rather than being punished for your sins through damnation, you are instead punished by instant death, given that damnation is no longer an option once your calling and election are made sure (and assuming you do not commit the unpardonable sin).

[Zakuska]

This part of Revelation was not about blood atonement or even about capital punishment in general. This is one example of a horrible translation in the KJV. Look at how it appears in the NIV, starting in verse 9, and presented like the poetry that it is:

All the other modern translations put it similarly. So you can see, the KJV gets it 180 degrees wrong.

Huh?

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)

Whoever leads into captivity goes into captivity and those who murder with the sword will be killed with the sword. Here is faith and the endurance of The Holy Ones.

Bible in Basic English

If any man sends others into prison, into prison he will go: if any man puts to death with the sword, with the sword will he be put to death. Here is the quiet strength and the faith of the saints.

Darby Bible Translation

If any one leads into captivity, he goes into captivity. If any one shall kill with the sword, he must with the sword be killed. Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints.

Young's Literal Translation

if any one a captivity doth gather, into captivity he doth go away; if any one by sword doth kill, it behoveth him by sword to be killed; here is the endurance and the faith of the saints.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Zakuska

[jo1952]

However, if a sealed and anointed person broke their covenants to any extent short of murder or the unpardonable sin, they would still gain their exaltation and become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, but would be "destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption" (D&C 132:26). The revelation did not, however, specify the mechanism by which such people would be "destroyed in the flesh," and it did not indicate whether that "redemption" would be the result of the sinner's own blood or the result of the atonement of Jesus.

My personal belief (though I certainly make no claims that I am correct) is that the Atonement covers the cost of sin whether that sin is forgiven in our second estate, or whether it is paid through justice after physical death. I interpret that if we receive forgiveness (which comes AFTER we repent but before we die) as an act fulfilled by Mercy. Mercy overrides the demands of Justice only if we are forgiven while in the flesh. OTOH, if we die without forgiveness of sin, then sin must be paid for in terms of a prison sentence; i.e., paid for in spirit prison. This is an act which fulfills the demands of Justice, because Mercy cannot rob Justice (which takes place after the period of time during which Mercy somehow recompenses Justice during the second estate). BOTH Mercy AND Justice are covered by the Atonement. Jesus' Atonement covers ALL* sin, so it is just a matter of WHERE sin ultimately is removed from us. OR, as I go through this thought process, is Mercy ONLY for the living; and justice is for those who died in sin?? Let's see where my thoughts lead me.

* Having said all of this, the only sin which, I believe, is NOT covered by the Atonement (indeed we are taught by Jesus that it is NOT forgivable), is the unpardonable sin. Inasmuch as those who wish to join the LDS Church, who have shed innocent blood BEFORE they learn the Gospel message and accept Christ, are special cases brought before the Church Presidency (correct me if I am wrong about this procedure). The matter is brought before the Lord, and at least some of these individuals are allowed to be baptized. So their shedding of innocent blood, it seems, IS covered by the Atonement AND Mercy BECAUSE they committed murder BEFORE they were saved.

Now, I also believe that it is possible for people who have not asked for forgiveness in their second estate to still be rid of their sin while in their second estate by punishment they suffer in the flesh. This may seem strange at first; so let me explain. Wherein the Jews (for instance) have been blinded by God so that they (in general---though there is the occasional Jew who DOES believe in Christ) cannot recognize who Christ is. God has allowed the free will of others to destroy oh so many Jews while they are in the flesh (for instance the Holocaust). I do not think that they are required to suffer further in spirit prison---after all, it was God's blindness which caused them not to be able to see (though this WAS a punishment upon them because they failed to recognized Jesus for who He was when He entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday....this is WHY Jesus wept, btw, as He knew what would befall them as a result). Of course, God used this opportunity (no big surprises here) for HIS purposes, as this then opened the door to the Gentiles. Additionally, despite hate that has accompanied the Jews along with their blindness, Paul has taughts us that ALL Jews WILL BE SAVED. This is a remarkable concept!!

I also think that sometimes, also through Mercy and Grace, God may destroy the very wicked while they are in the flesh in order to save them from needing to spend even longer amounts of time (or their part) in either spirit prison (which may or may not have been a long enough period of time for their sentence to have been filled....thus subjecting them to the fate of doing a part in the lake of fire and brimstone....read further). I would consider the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah as fitting into this category.

So, to repeat part of the above quote:

The revelation did not, however, specify the mechanism by which such people would be "destroyed in the flesh," and it did not indicate whether that "redemption" would be the result of the sinner's own blood or the result of the atonement of Jesus.

First of all, I would say that Jesus' Atonement ultimately is what allows such people to still obtain Exaltation BECAUSE they have not spilled innocent blood. If they DID spill innocent blood, then the most they could achieve is Eternal life - but not be able to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. I would say that the manner of their payment probably is that they are destroyed in the flesh by other than natural causes such as illness or old-age; but that their redemption is a result of the Atonement, though the demands of justice require that they suffer the buffetings of Satan. IOW, they suffer both destruction of the flesh as well as spirit prison because by virtue of having been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promis, they are responsible for much more. This would cause that their sin require additional punishment.

Now, isn't it interesting that David's Exaltation was removed from him for committing the unpardonable sin, but will still enjoy Eternal life? This rather gives us another view of what we believe "eternal" punishment may actually look like. Is David able to still enter God's presence because he has spent time in the lake of fire and brimstone and done "his part" there?? Is this what Jesus was alluding to when He taught that those who commit the unpardonable sin are "in danger of losing Eternal life" (which we call Exaltation) - which leaves us with a pretty clear indication that committing the unpardonable sin does NOT necessarily equate to permanent damnation even though it is still called an "unforgivable sin". Yet with David being able to still live in God's presence, then he would HAVE to be without sin. Was his sin, therefore, purged from him....not by the Atonement due to its seriousness...but by spending time in the lake of fire of brimstone? To be clear, then, by being purged of his sin, David is still able to return to Father's presence but NOT due to the Atonement. But he DOES have the limitation of being excluded from Exaltation.

Revelation 21:8 (emphasis added) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall HAVE THEIR PART in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Indeed, look who else is spending their part in this lake!! We have the "fearful", we have "liars" - both which seem so minor compared to the others.

What is most remarkable, is that it appears that ANY sin (accept the unpardonable sin) can be committed AFTER receiving the sealing of the Holy Spirit of Promise and a person can STILL live in the Celestial Kingdom--just not the highest level!!!

So, is there a difference then between hell/spirit prison versus the lake of fire and brimstone? Is the lake of fire and brimstone the place where a sin must be purged because that is the only place where the Atonement cannot be applied?? Or are they the same...and it is only the sin itself which determines whether or not the Atonement can apply? How is it that both Death and Hell are thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone...but people are still doing their part there? So much to think about....so many unanswered questions.....

I have tied a hat upon my head so that when it does explode, it will be easier for others to clean up after me.....

Regards,

jo

Edited October 30, 2011 by jo1952

[thesometimesaint]

Even the Church justs excommunicates murderers, and lets the law of the state be carried out.

Theologically, there is onlly one sin for which there is no forgiveness is possible and murder isn't it.

[why me]

This part of Revelation was not about blood atonement or even about capital punishment in general. This is one example of a horrible translation in the KJV. Look at how it appears in the NIV, starting in verse 9, and presented like the poetry that it is:

All the other modern translations put it similarly. So you can see, the KJV gets it 180 degrees wrong.

And how can I know if the modern translations are correct and not the result of a political correct interpretation? Or an attempt to give the bible a humanized cleaning?

[why me]

Back in the day, it was more or less known that Utah kept the death penalty option alive by firing squad because of the concept of blood atonement. Now of course, this could be folklore but nonetheless I remember it being discussed every now and then.

[jo1952]

Even the Church justs excommunicates murderers, and lets the law of the state be carried out.

Theologically, there is onlly one sin for which there is no forgiveness is possible and murder isn't it.

It IS murder of innocent blood if the murder is committed AFTER someone has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. There are two actions which are identified with committing the unpardonable sin, which as I understand it, constitute grounds for becoming an sop. One is to deny Christ (refuse to accept His gift) even after having received sure knowledge of who He is (this can happen either spiritually before Christ returns (thus deny the Holy Ghost), or physically upon His return when the mystery of God has been removed and every knee shall bow); the second is to commit murder (spill innocent blood) AFTER having been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise aka received sure knowledge. This second is the sin which David committed. Now, is having your calling and election made sure akin to being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise? They almost seem to be one and the same.

Regards,

jo

[TruthSeeker24]

This whole topic sounds to me like it will 'cause thousands to apostatize as soon as its more fully expounded upon. Brigham Young said that there were some sins that the atonement of Christ would never fully cover for...and if he said it...I believe it. Call me a lemming if you want lol.

[frankenstein]

Not sure of your of your point with the op, but blood atonement is not doctrine for the lds church and the lds church has officially said as much.

Blood atonement, if it can even be callled that, would / could have been part of the law of Moses

Also, I would say your reliance on the revelation verse is misguided, it does not support blood atonement, it supports that human nature is too fight back against ones captures and that in such situations the faith on saints must have them turn the other cheek.

The saints are not to live by the sword of flesh that is their patience and faith.

Edited December 7, 2011 by frankenstein

[TruthSeeker24]

Just because something isn't "voted" in as doctrine, doesn't mean it's not true. There's tons of doctrine we don't have as far as my understanding goes. I also think it would be safe to say that their are several laws in "the law of Moses" that need to be introduced again before Christ will come. Animal sacrifice for example. I really believe Brigham Young was just touching upon Blood Atonement, trying to test and see how the people would react to it. Anyways, I could be wrong of course, its just the impression I get about it

[frankenstein]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday:

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.

[TruthSeeker24]

Yea, I know the view the Church has on it. I'm not really disputing it either. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I believe we discredit way to much of the early teachings simply because they weren't "voted" on. There's sooo much more we don't know, and I think we need to be ready to accept it when it comes...as opposed to just casting it out because it wasn't voted on...or doesn't make sense to us. Besides, I'd rather follow older beliefs when the Church was much closer to God. It was knowledge that Brigham Young saw Christ Himself. Who can say that today? I'd rather follow those who were righteous enough to see the Savior...even if the doctrine they teach has yet to be "voted" on by people over a hundred years later.

[frankenstein]

If Christs blood was the only necessary blood to be spilt then there was no reason for the anicent Israelites to cleans the land by blood atonement for murder.

Even Christ himself declared the death penatly for murder... AFTER his ressurection.

Revelation 13:10

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Why God or Jesus established certain practices under the Law Of Moses isn't for us to speculate.

As for Jesus and the death penalty, I say again you do err. Look at the full context of Revelation 13:10, you most certainly can not expound on 13:10 without 13:09 - verse 9 (If any man have an ear, let him hear) indicating that verse 10 is a parable. But even verse 9 does not provide the full extent of of verse 10.

Verses 4 - 8 speak of a Dragon who has power to make war with the Saints and to overcome them and all whose name are not in the Book of Life of the Lamb worship the Dragon. 4 - 8 indicate that the "Saints" (and I would say that term in context refers to all who names are written in the Book of Life) will be persecuted and killed. If any one hath an ear, let him hear. I think the following represents what Revelation 13:10 is referring too

"Thus sayeth the Lord your God, vengance is mine and I shall repay; and I declare in my vengeance, he that leadeth into captivity himself shall be lead into captivity, he that killeth with sword himself will be killed with the sword. Herein is your faith and your patience: Fear not little flock, peace be unto thy soul; thin adversity shall be but a small moment, for I have descended below them all are thou greater than I AM?"

[kolipoki09]

This whole topic sounds to me like it will 'cause thousands to apostatize as soon as its more fully expounded upon. Brigham Young said that there were some sins that the atonement of Christ would never fully cover for...and if he said it...I believe it. Call me a lemming if you want lol.

You're not a lemming. You're just a Mormon fundamentalist.

There's no doubt in my mind that Brigham intended to say things precisely as it was recorded.

Blood atonement was not only believed, but it was practiced (albeit on a limited basis).

But now, modern prophets (that is, the ones we believe hold the keys to administering the kingdom on earth and properly succeeded Brigham Young and John Taylor) no longer enforce such extremities.

It may have been doable in the Wild West, but not now.

[volgadon]

And how can I know if the modern translations are correct and not the result of a political correct interpretation? Or an attempt to give the bible a humanized cleaning?

By studying Koine Greek.