Blood Atonement

[bluebell]

Again, outside the Crucifixion, Blood Atonement is worthless. If it meant ANYTHING at all, there would be no need for the ultimate revelation that is the Resurrection.

Why? (What i'm really asking is for you to explain the statement above, not just repeat it. )

Going back to the example i already used-returning something you stole to repent of theft is a necessary step in the repentance process, even though it doesn't add to the salvic properties of the Atonement in the least. It doesn't help Christ atone for that sin--it doesn't affect the reality of the Atonement at all--but He still requires it.

If that is true (and i believe that's truly how repentance works), then why does the idea of restitution for murder by forfeiting your life automatically call into question the reality of the Atonement when restutition for theft by forfeiting the item you stole doesn't?

Edited May 5, 2012 by bluebell

[Log]

Why doesn't requiring repentance obviate the Atonement, now that you mention it? I want to hear an explanation for that.

Because once you buy into the notion that the Atonement requires an action or effort of any kind to become effected, the haemophobiacs are stuck avoiding BlueBell's question.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Log

[David T]

Why? (What i'm really asking is for you to explain the statement above, not just repeat it. )

Going back to the example i already used-returning something you stole to repent of theft is a necessary step in the repentance process, even though it doesn't add to the salvic properties of the Atonement in the least. It doesn't help Christ atone for that sin--it doesn't affect the reality of the Atonement at all--but He still requires it.

If that is true (and i believe that's truly how repentance works)

I think there's some assumptions going here which muddy this discussion. Say I've stolen something in the past. I since have had a sincere change of heart, and find that, for one or another real and legitimate reasons, it is not possible to return the item, or re-change the course of that person's life which had been altered by the event of my having stolen the item.

Are there some who really believe that the Atonement would be ineffective for this individual?

This is a case where, from my perspective, we're getting caught up, Pharisaical-style, of fulfilling the principle of repentance by over-regulating its application, and then creating ad-hoc doctrines to explain the practices.

Restitution, or returning back what was taken when it is within one's power to do so, is a sign of one's true conversion, not a stand-alone button that needs to be pressed to activate the Atonement. Willingness to take responsibility for one's actions - including serving the government instituted legal penalty when charges are brought - is also a sign of one's humility, conversion, and accountability.

It is my view that we do the meaning of the Atonement a disservice when we turn helpers, guideposts, and signs of becoming Christlike into checkmarks that, if not done, must mean the Atonement won't work. Yes, the helpers, guideposts, and signs are extremely helpful, and even empowering. But when they overpower the underpinning principles on which they are based, of grace, and becoming more like the Savior, they become tools of guilt and obligation rather than assistance in a path of true spiritual reform and healing.

I see the Atonement as being activated as it changes someone's life, and draws them towards the Love of God, and they become At One with his love, purposes, and desires. And then the 'signs follow those who believe', and are changed. I believe we are forgiven before we repent, and that our conversion and impulsion to repent comes from the powerful recognition of the love of God that forgave a sinner - much like Valjean's conversion and repentance following and as a result of his forgiveness by the humble Bishop he stole from, in Les Miserables.

Edited May 5, 2012 by David T

[LDSGuy]

Might "blood atonement" also refer to suffering even as Christ suffered? I know that with blood atonement a repentant attitude would be necessary, and that suffering as Christ did would be because of failure to repent. However, I think the principle is there. Wouldn't blaspheme against the Holy Ghost be one for which a person would have to make atonement for themselves? Or, is it still unforgivable even with "blood atonement?"

[bluebell]

I think there's some assumptions going here which muddy this discussion. Say I've stolen something in the past. I since have had a sincere change of heart, and find that, for one or another real and legitimate reasons, it is not possible to return the item, or re-change the course of that person's life which had been altered by the event of my having stolen the item.

Are there some who really believe that the Atonement would be ineffective for this individual?

I don't know of anyone who would believe that the Atonement would be ineffective in such a case, but does that mean that restitution, when it is possible, isn't necessary?

And if it is necessary, even if it's not 100% of the time, then my question is still valid.

Restitution, or returning back what was taken when it is within one's power to do so, is a sign of one's true conversion, not a stand-alone button that needs to be pressed to activate the Atonement. Willingness to take responsibility for one's actions - including serving the government instituted legal penalty when charges are brought - is also a sign of one's humility, conversion, and accountability.

Yes, of course.

It is my view that we do the meaning of the Atonement a disservice when we turn helpers, guideposts, and signs of becoming Christlike into checkmarks that, if not done, must mean the Atonement won't work.

I completely agree. But then again, i never meant to imply anything about helpers, guideposts, and signs like you have said above.

I see the Atonement as being activated as it changes someone's life, and draws them towards the Love of God, and they become At One with his love, purposes, and desires. And then the 'signs follow those who believe', and are changed. I believe we are forgiven before we repent, and that our conversion and impulsion to repent comes from the powerful recognition of the love of God that forgave a sinner - much like Valjean's conversion and repentance following and as a result of his forgiveness by the humble Bishop he stole from, in Les Miserables.

I believe repentance is the act of returning to God when our choices have lead us away from him, and that that is why God requires repentance. Repentance is not just turning around to go back the other direction, but the actual journey of going back which results in us being one with God.

This journey doesn't help the Atonement have any power to save us, it helps us to access the power of the Atonement.

And if returning a stolen item, when possible, helps us to accomplish that journey without denying the reality of the Atonement, then why couldn't forfeiting your life when you have taken the life of an innocent person do the same thing?

(and again, just to be clear, i'm not arguing for blood atonement. I'm questioning the reason that has been given of why it can't be true.)

[David T]

And if returning a stolen item, when possible, helps us to accomplish that journey without denying the reality of the Atonement, then why couldn't forfeiting your life when you have taken the life of an innocent person do the same thing?

(and again, just to be clear, i'm not arguing for blood atonement. I'm questioning the reason that has been given of why it can't be true.)

If we're talking about 'forfeiting your life' as just a trade-out, as in, "well, I took his life, now I need to have my own taken", for some reason apart from seeing to the potential demands of legal justice, it doesn't make any Gospel sense. The grieving family members and friends don't get their dead back just because the murderer was killed. It's not a practical 'trade'.

What does make sense is the willingness to forfeit one's life in the line of active Christian duty - and this is a promise all Temple-going Latter-day Saints explicitly covenant they are willing to do - not just murderers! The best example is Saul/Paul. While we don't know the details, we do know that not only did he approve of the murder of Christians, he also did all he could to put them into a position where they would be killed. He was very literally an accessory to murder. Now, under the principle of 'Blood Atonement', one could argue that upon conversion, he should have given himself over to the authorities and been killed right there, to atone for what he did. Instead, he forfeit his life in another way - by devoting it to teaching the world the Gospel. He sacrificed all that he possessed, even, eventually his own life, in sustaining and defending the kingdom of God.

I say this lifetime of service and devotion to Gospel and the lives he was seeking to better, to the end where he was willing to be murdered (and in his case, he was) speaks more of the effect of the Atonement on one's life than turning oneself in before a firing squad. In fact, that was also literally what Jesus did - live a life of service and devotion to God and the lives he was seeking to better, to the end where he was willing to be murdered (and he was).

We're all called to that degree of devotion - however, thankfully, in most cases, we're not placed in a position where fulfilling our responsibilities has murder as an inevitable end to our lives and serivce.

Edited May 6, 2012 by David T

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

^ Amen.

[bluebell]

If we're talking about 'forfeiting your life' as just a trade-out, as in, "well, I took his life, now I need to have my own taken", for some reason apart from seeing to the potential demands of legal justice, it doesn't make any Gospel sense. The grieving family members and friends don't get their dead back just because the murderer was killed. It's not a practical 'trade'.

What does make sense is the willingness to forfeit one's life in the line of active Christian duty - and this is a promise all Temple-going Latter-day Saints explicitly covenant they are willing to do - not just murderers! The best example is Saul/Paul. While we don't know the details, we do know that not only did he approve of the murder of Christians, he also did all he could to put them into a position where they would be killed. He was very literally an accessory to murder. Now, under the principle of 'Blood Atonement', one could argue that upon conversion, he should have given himself over to the authorities and been killed right there, to atone for what he did. Instead, he forfeit his life in another way - by devoting it to teaching the world the Gospel. He sacrificed all that he possessed, even, eventually his own life, in sustaining and defending the kingdom of God.

I say this lifetime of service and devotion to Gospel and the lives he was seeking to better, to the end where he was willing to be murdered (and in his case, he was) speaks more of the effect of the Atonement on one's life than turning oneself in before a firing squad. In fact, that was also literally what Jesus did - live a life of service and devotion to God and the lives he was seeking to better, to the end where he was willing to be murdered (and he was).

We're all called to that degree of devotion - however, thankfully, in most cases, we're not placed in a position where fulfilling our responsibilities has murder as an inevitable end to our lives and serivce.

Yes, this does make sense and it's what i've been waiting for someone to say.

It shows that it's not simply the reality of Christ having already died for our sins that makes blood atonement wrong, but that there are practical reasons (which parallel the teachings of the gospel concerning the purpose of life) which provide valid reasons for not accepting the doctrine.

It's the 'why' i wanted to see put into writing.

As a side note, it would be interesting to hear BY's interpretation of the doctrine and more particularly his defense of it, since he obviously had all of the same knowledge that we do concerning the purposes of the gospel and yet seemed to have come up with an idea that many of us see as being contradictory. I don't think we could just say that he didn't get 'it' and that if he knew what we know he would have believed as we do. Makes me wonder where he was coming from.

[Log]

I don't see it as contradictory that in order to repent fully from a murder that the murderer should voluntarily consent to being slain, as the Lord has commanded murderers should be killed, both anciently and modernly. Neither do I see it as contradictory that in order to fully repent a thief must restore at least what was taken if possible, and more, according to both precept and example in the scriptures.

I'm not seeing a direct answer to that issue, which I originally thought was Bluebell's question. I guess it wasn't.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Log

[Bernard Gui]

Perhaps. I've never thought the brethren were infallible. I take comfort in knowing that they make mistakes. Makes me more like them.

And it makes me like them more.

Bernard

[bluebell]

I don't see it as contradictory that in order to repent fully from a murder that the murderer should voluntarily consent to being slain, as the Lord has commanded murderers should be killed, both anciently and modernly. Neither do I see it as contradictory that in order to fully repent a thief must restore at least what was taken if possible, and more, according to both precept and example in the scriptures.

I'm not seeing a direct answer to that issue, which I originally thought was Bluebell's question. I guess it wasn't.

I think the contradictory part is that we believe that those who rely on the Atonement and repent, can be forgiven of sins without having to pay the price that Christ paid.

Also, though restitution is a part of repentance, giving up your life to try to repent of murder doesn't actually restore anything. It's kind of the equivelant of having stolen someone's car, and then, as part of the repentance process, causing your own car to be stolen. That's not restitution, it's an eye for an eye and we don't live under that law anymore.

Obviously BY believed that these things as well though, which is why I think it would be fascinating to have this conversation with him and really be able to question his ideas.

[Log]

Also, though restitution is a part of repentance, giving up your life to try to repent of murder doesn't actually restore anything.

Nobody, even Brother Brigham, said it did.

Obviously BY believed that these things as well though, which is why I think it would be fascinating to have this conversation with him and really be able to question his ideas.

In reading his sermons, I believe much has been read into them that he did not put into them himself.

[Damien the Leper]

Why? (What i'm really asking is for you to explain the statement above, not just repeat it. )

Going back to the example i already used-returning something you stole to repent of theft is a necessary step in the repentance process, even though it doesn't add to the salvic properties of the Atonement in the least. It doesn't help Christ atone for that sin--it doesn't affect the reality of the Atonement at all--but He still requires it.

If that is true (and i believe that's truly how repentance works), then why does the idea of restitution for murder by forfeiting your life automatically call into question the reality of the Atonement when restutition for theft by forfeiting the item you stole doesn't?

Repentance is necessary. I'm not disregarding that fact. But Jesus is NOT asking anyone to die for their own sins. The would null the Atonement. Any analogies in which someone is required to die for their sins, once again, shows a lack of understanding of the meaning and purpose of the Atonement. Capital Punishment is a man-made law. Paying restitution to a justice system for theft is a man-made law.

Explicitly demonstrate anywhere in scripture where CHRIST requires death for sin.

[Log]

In fact, here's one of the more commonly known "blood atonement" sermons.

I mention this to inform the people, that they may understand what they should do with regard to the law of God, and the transgression thereof. The law is very strict; and in this congregation there are men and women who, with uplifted hands to heaven, before the Father, the Son, and all the holy angels, made solemn covenants that they never would do thus and so. For example, one obligation is, "I will never have anything to do with any of the daughters of Eve, unless they are given to me of the Lord." Men will call God to witness that they never will transgress this law, and promise to live a virtuous life, so far as intercourse with females is concerned; but what can you see? A year will not pass away before some few of them are guilty of creeping into widows' houses, and into bed with the wives of their brethren, debauching one woman here, and another there. Do we enforce upon them the strict penalty of the law? Not yet. I hope their conduct arises from their ignorance, but let me transgress my covenant, and the case would be different. I want to live as long as I can, on the earth, but I would not like to live to violate my covenants; I would rather go behind the vail before doing so.

page 247

A few of the men and women who go into the house of the Lord, and receive their endowments, and in the most sacred manner make covenants before the Almighty, go and violate those covenants. Do I have compassion on them? Yes, I do have mercy on them, for there is something in their organization which they do not understand; and there are but few in this congregation who do understand it.

You say, "That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God." Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged.

Every man and women has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone.

Again, suppose the parties are, not caught in their iniquity, and it passes along unnoticed, shall I have compassion on them? Yes, I will have compassion on them, for transgressions of the nature already named, or for those of any other description. If the Lord so order it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live; and I say let them live and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do.

There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants. To what degree? Will they have to go to hell? They are in hell enough now. I do not wish them in a greater hell, when their consciences condemn them all the time. Let compassion reign in our bosoms. Try to comprehend how weak we are, how we are organized, how the spirit and the flesh are continually at war.

It is interesting to me that the subject of this sermon is willfully violating one's covenants - with specific reference to the Law of Chastity. At which point does Brother Brigham err?

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

That's not restitution, it's an eye for an eye and we don't live under that law anymore.

Just as a side note, the Law of Moses was much more about restitution than it was about "an eye for an eye" and in fact, "an eye for an eye" refers not to a person having to sacrifice his own eye if he puts out another's, but to giving the person the value for that eye.

wiki has an interesting discussion on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye

also it is clear from the context it is about establishing what level of payment in recompense should be given (in other parts of the Bible, restitution is given not in identical value amounts but fourfold):

22 ¶If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.....

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot......

¶And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.

Edited May 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Just as a side note, the Law of Moses was much more about restitution than it was about "an eye for an eye" and in fact, "an eye for an eye" refers not to a person having to sacrifice his own eye if he puts out another's, but to giving the person the value for that eye.

I disagree. The scriptural text does not seem to make such a substitution possible, though I am aware the Rabbis superimposed such a reading on the text.

Justice is that a man should suffer to the exact degree he has caused others to suffer, or has sought to so cause; likewise, a man should be profited to the exact degree he profits others, or has sought to so profit.

[Cobalt-70]

Many sins as presented in the Old Testament,required the death of the sinner.Such deaths were to be carried out by stoning ,which is a particularly bloody and offtimes slow process. There were and are several quick and relatively pain-free ways to kill a person and yet these were not the chosen method,Why? Why all the centuries of BLOOD sacrifice in Israel? Why all the times when societies resorted to human blood sacrifice if there were no connection to a personal death in a bloody manner which would restore the cleanliness of individuals or communities.? I can understand the foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice but I also think there is more to it from an individual's perspective.

Stonings were not human sacrifices. They were retributive punishment for crimes. The fact that it was painful is no different from the painfulness of certain European penalties for regicide, like being drawn and quartered, etc. The torture involved as part of the execution is a way that God, or the King, violently and poignantly reasserts his authority and domination over his realm after that authority has been damaged by the lawbreaker.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

This is a case where, from my perspective, we're getting caught up, Pharisaical-style, of fulfilling the principle of repentance by over-regulating its application, and then creating ad-hoc doctrines to explain the practices.

Restitution, or returning back what was taken when it is within one's power to do so, is a sign of one's true conversion, not a stand-alone button that needs to be pressed to activate the Atonement. Willingness to take responsibility for one's actions - including serving the government instituted legal penalty when charges are brought - is also a sign of one's humility, conversion, and accountability.

It is my view that we do the meaning of the Atonement a disservice when we turn helpers, guideposts, and signs of becoming Christlike into checkmarks that, if not done, must mean the Atonement won't work. Yes, the helpers, guideposts, and signs are extremely helpful, and even empowering. But when they overpower the underpinning principles on which they are based, of grace, and becoming more like the Savior, they become tools of guilt and obligation rather than assistance in a path of true spiritual reform and healing.

Amen. The idea of "restitution" is tied up with blood atonement. The idea that anyone's restitution actually partially atones for one's sins undermines the fundamentals of Christianity. According to basic Christian ideas, any unclean thing cannot enter God's kingdom, and it doesn't matter whether your sins are big or small, or whether or not you have tried to pay restitution. Once you have sinned, it is too late--you can't claw your way back. You can't get back to God without the grace of Christ. He only gives his grace to those that believe in him, and true faith means that you will naturally try to undo the bad things you did, if possible.

But trying to undo the harm you caused is not actually "restitution." Once you have sinned, it is too late for you to anything of yourself to repair the breach that has developed between yourself and God (i.e., the "second death"). That breach is only repaired by the grace of Jesus, and Jesus looks to the intent and purity of your inner soul, rather than some balance ledger of sins and restitutions.