savedbygrace Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Just the other day I watched a You tube video that I can't get out of my mind. I think it went under the heading of Mormons killing mormons. Many on here may have seen it, but for those who haven't it is a young woman talking about the murder of her husband by members of the fundamentalis mormon group they had belonged to. At the end of it she says words to the effect of , If anything happens to me or my children, I will lay the responsibility for that at the door of the Mormon church, where the blood atonement teaching came from. Some time later thisyoung woman was found dead in her home.I don't know how to phrase my question, but how did the Church respond to this? I know the group who did this are not mainstream LDS, but they still hold to the teaching that there are some sins that require the shedding of the sinners blood to atone because the atonement of Christ isn't enough. This teaching as the victim said came from the Mormon church, it may not be taught now but as the victim states it started there, and as a result her innocent blood is laid by her at the church's door. Also, fundamentalist mormons, are they not just what the original LDS were, ie, people who knew and accepted these doctrines as truth?I think I am kind of hoping that you will tell me that it was a fake video, but it didn't seem soYou need to read the board rules before you post again.
rodheadlee Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 " but they still hold to the teaching that there are some sins that require the shedding of the sinners blood to atone because the atonement of Christ isn't enough"What a crock. This statement right here should tell you all you need to know.
Tacenda Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 " but they still hold to the teaching that there are some sins that require the shedding of the sinners blood to atone because the atonement of Christ isn't enough"What a crock. This statement right here should tell you all you need to know.This bothered me too, that it was taught at one time in the church but when you think about it, isn't capital punishment the same thing? When someone is on death row they are going to be put to death and in a way, atone for their sin.
Questing Beast Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 It isn't a crock; BY himself taught that some sins are so horrible that the sinner, in order to be able to take advantage of Christ's atonement, must FIRST pay for his sin with his own life, which includes "spilling his blood upon the ground". That is why execution in Utah for generations was by firing squad. The teaching of "blood atonement" was real at the time....
Calm Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) the teaching that there are some sins that require the shedding of the sinners blood to atone because the atonement of Christ isn't enough.Blood Atonement was taught as the willing sacrifice of someone. If someone else takes their life for them without their consent, it isn't blood atonement.Just as the Crusaders, Islamic extremists, etc. have twisted teachings of faith to justify their selfish and evil acts, so is it being done here. The 'source' of the teaching is not the Church, but their own evil hearts and desires. Edited March 16, 2013 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts