A Question About Blood Atonement

[Stourme]

This is one of those subjects where the explanations needs an explanation.

The blood of Christ has the power to wash away all sin. All of them. However, it's not automatic. Jesus Christ decides on who that blood will be applied to. And for that He has laid down His law.

D & C 19:

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

17 But if they would not repent they must ^asuffer even as I;

18 Which ^asuffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might ^bnot drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

In order to repent of murder, Jesus requires the life of the murderer.

Alma 1

13 And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance.

Brigham Young's teaching on this are right in line with the other prophets teachings.

[Stone holm]

I was all ready to feel indignant at the anti's for taking that quote out of context until I read the whole paper. I didn't like it. So Brigham Young was saying he had clean hands and was okay in slaying the adulterers? He's still saying to commit murder with clean hands and especially if you catch them in the act! This is terrible to say these things. He's definitely speaking blood atonement. Saying it's better for the sinner to die or atone for their own sin.

He isn't that far off the mark though when it comes to former 19th Century common law which made allowances for actions taken in the heat of the moment as opposed to actions taken later after the blood had cooled.

[Tacenda]

He isn't that far off the mark though when it comes to former 19th Century common law which made allowances for actions taken in the heat of the moment as opposed to actions taken later after the blood had cooled.

Thanks, that helped a ton to look at it that way, sort of like 2nd degree murder. Edited April 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

That's what I thought the modern teaching of the Church was.

But I'm not sure that's not an oversimplification.

When every state had the death penalty, any sectarian priest or minister would counsel a penitant who confessed to being guilty of a capital crime to bring forth fruits of repentance by turning themselves in to the authorities.

In practicality, that would mean that to benefit from the atonement, or receive absolution, they'd have to face execution.

So I'm not entirely sure what Brigham taught, whether it was wrong, or how different it was to what the Church teaches today.

These are some of the things I'm interested in, which is why I think you misunderstood the OP.

I'd like to know whether the Church now teaches what you say it does, and whether it's always taught that.

More specifically: I'd like to know if BY ever really taught the doctrine that certain sins couldn't be covered by Christ's blood alone (or whether it's possible the anti's have made it appear that way by taking some of his comments out of context, and leaving out important restraining clauses, like the FAIR article seems to imply.)

Are you saying that if Brigham Young (while the President and living Prophet of the Church) was teaching false doctrine, God couldn't have corrected him, or are you saying that Brigham was so attached to his own opinions that he wouldn't have listened?

Or are you saying that God couldn't have spoken to him in some way, and told him "Brigham my son, there's only one Blood Atonement that is necessary, and that that one happened a little over 1800 years ago"?

In Church doctrine there is only one unforgivable sin, and murder even most awful isn't it. Christ has paid in full for all my sins if I repent. Any unrepented of sin I committed I will pay to the uttermost Farthing for. That tells me I've got a lot of repenting to do.

The Church has consistently maintained that we are constrained by the limits of the law under which we live. We here in the US do not live in a theocracy, and the penalty for adultery is not execution. The most we can do is try one for is their membership in the Church. Nothing more, and that doctrine was established as doctrine by Joseph Smith and has never been rescinded.

While confession may be good for the soul. Confessing to something we didn't do is pointless and totally unnecessary. God knows what we did or didn't do. we will be held accountable for what we do, not what for someone else did.

TTBOMK. The Church is bound by what it says its doctrines are. Not necessarily what any one mortal man, no matter in what position of authority, says it is. BY held a great many opinions that today the Saints don't hold. He lived in a very rough and tumble age of our country. He had a very headstrong and uncooperative people to lead to the valleys of the Salt Lake. BY said himself the Saints brought Babylon with them. Then he tried to make that outpost of somewhat civilized humanity work. I don't envy him his job. He did the best he could considering whom he had to work with.

We don't believe in the infallibility of mortal men. Never have. It is the doctrines and prophecies that are perfect. We are but servants of God, or at least we should be.

For whatever reason it doesn't appear that God publicly corrected BY on a number of his ideas. I just know that God called him to be the Prophet, and whatever false ideas BY had have long been corrected, or so thoroughly ignored that they are relegated to the dust bin of history. I would hate to think that every false idea that I've ever had would be fodder for understanding and more commonly misunderstanding by future generations of critics.

[Stone holm]

Thanks that helped a ton, to look at it that way, sort of like 2nd degree murder.

Yep, or manslaughter . Would it help to say that what was good for the gander was good for the goose back then, probably not. They didn't seem. To have Avery good handle on anger management or domestic violence back then either.

[Glenn101]

In Church doctrine there is only one unforgivable sin, and murder even most awful isn't it. Christ has paid in full for all my sins if I repent. Any unrepented of sin I committed I will pay to the uttermost Farthing for. That tells me I've got a lot of repenting to do.

I was going to disagree with you a bit on this but after reading

"Doctrine and Covenants 132:27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."

I would have to say that you appear to be correct. I was going to give the example of King David in the murder of Uriah the Hittite, but it would appear that King David's act falls under that clause.

I am still learning, and I actually feel a lot better after re-examining that scripture.

Glenn

[Questing Beast]

The "sin against the Holy Ghost" is possibly the least understood sin. I have read some "authorities" who insist that the "sons of perdition" will be very numerous, and others who say that they will be very few. Some assert that only members of the "true faith" can qualify as sons of perdition, while others allow that anyone who knows Christ intimately (which surely includes thousands down the ages) and rejects his atonement as a thing of naught is alike guilty of assenting unto his death. Once I made an effort to understand how to determine what makes a son of perdition. And I decided that in this life nobody is a son of perdition, that comes later, when during the "judgment" that soul can look God and Christ in the eye and deny that they have the power they claim, that their roles are bogus, that they are not what they pretend to, etc. I would feel dangerously close to that state myself, if it were not for my equally strong assertion that they respect such honesty when it is not combined with injustice. A just person who rejects God and Christ, yet worships the Necessary Cause of all our existence (including GtF and Christ's), is not guilty of a sin, imho. If looking for more intimate relationship with the Necessary Cause is a sin, then it is one of ignorance not malice. And the doctrine says that compassion and mercy is extended to those who act and speak out of ignorance....

[thesometimesaint]

I was going to disagree with you a bit on this but after reading

"Doctrine and Covenants 132:27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."

I would have to say that you appear to be correct. I was going to give the example of King David in the murder of Uriah the Hittite, but it would appear that King David's act falls under that clause.

I am still learning, and I actually feel a lot better after re-examining that scripture.

Glenn

No problem. We are all learning, or we at least should be.

My personal opinion is that murder is a major sin against man and God. But one that can be repented of. We obviously can't make full restitution of that life, even if God does in the Resurrection. However full restitution is not required. Restitution as far as possible is.

I also believe that the reason that sin against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable is the SOP through an act of their own will. They will not repent.

Ps. I was going to use the example of the Roman soldiers that nailed Christ to that cross. Christ said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Edited April 10, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[CA Steve]

I have seen the term "across lots" used by Brigham Young, maybe others. What does it mean?

http://jod.mrm.org/1/81

[Glenn101]

Ps. I was going to use the example of the Roman soldiers that nailed Christ to that cross. Christ said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Another good example would be the Lamanites who converted to the Gospel then refused to even defend their own lives for fear that they might commit murder.

Glenn

[KevinG]

So Brigham Young was saying he had clean hands and was okay in slaying the adulterers? He's still saying to commit murder with clean hands and especially if you catch them in the act!

Um... no. read that again. And for bonus points: How many people did Brigham slay or allow to be slain for adultry?

[Tacenda]

Um... no. read that again. And for bonus points: How many people did Brigham slay or allow to be slain for adultry?

Here is some of the quote.........

"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 woman 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 orders 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."

KevinG, he is saying both! And no, I don't know if Brigham killed anyone, but believe people have been killed or maimed by order of a leader or possibly Brigham. Don't CFR because I said believe not know!

We do not allow unsubstantiated villainous accusations against leaders of any religion on this board.

[KevinG]

For fair minded people extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Slandering Brigham or any other prophet is a good business for anti-mormons and sensationalist reporters but for someone seeking the truth behind his teachings it is a poor substitute for knowing for yourself through learning and prayer.

Brigham was illustrating a point, that adulterers and murderers both can be atoned for, and we must provide restitution for our sins as part of repentance, and if someone was free of guilt they could carry out "old testament" justice- BUT his bigger point is none of us are free from guilt and it is is better to allow people time to repent, fight the temptations of the flesh and avoid being unrightous judges ourselves. This is the nature of mortality as he points out in his concluding sentence:

"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."

If you picked up the lesson (as anti Mormons like to emphasise in this discourse) that Brigham feels its perfectly OK to stab adulteres through the heart then you missed the point of the lesson by a mile.

Edited April 10, 2013 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Lets try an illustration.

If I teach "If you caught a man robbing a store at gunpoint and you were perfect you could be justified in shooting him- but since none of us are perfect perhaps we should have compassion and spare his life so he can repent and we can be found free of guilt.

Then someone came along and said,

Kevin says "If you caught a man robbing a store at gunpoint and you were perfect you could be justified in shooting him..."

Now does really advocate shooting all robbers or does he have a larger point illustrated by the whole story?

[Stone holm]

I was going to disagree with you a bit on this but after reading

"Doctrine and Covenants 132:27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."

I would have to say that you appear to be correct. I was going to give the example of King David in the murder of Uriah the Hittite, but it would appear that King David's act falls under that clause.

I am still learning, and I actually feel a lot better after re-examining that scripture.

Glenn

A murderer does not inherit the Celestial Kingdom, however, a murderer does not necessarily get sent into outer darkness, but rather will inherit one of the lesser kingdoms unless he commits the sin against the holy ghost. Thus David received an assurance that he would not become a son of perdtion, but the consensus seems to be he lost his bid for the Celestial Kingdom. It takes a special level of knowledge to sin against the holy ghost, the exact level of knowledge that is required is uncertain. I tend to view it as the big door and the small door school which stem from the respective positions taken by Talmadge and Joseph F. Smith regarding whether or not Judas was a son of perdition. Talmadge declared him a son of perdition, Joseph F. Smith said he did not believe that Judas had sufficient knowledge -- I took it from Joseph F. Smith that you would have to have had basically a face to face encounter with God so that you had not faith, but actual knowledge and then chose to deny God and intentionally fight against Him and His Church. Spencer W. Kimball sum up the situation as far as his knowledge of Judas as, "I don't know and you can quote me on that." after citing the disagreement between Talmadge and Smith.

[thesometimesaint]

I obviously don't know either. But I think that the example of Peter is instructive. He followed Jesus on a daily basis, and yet he denied he knew Jesus three times in one night. He repented and went on to become the lead Apostle.

[Stone holm]

I obviously don't know either. But I think that the example of Peter is instructive. He followed Jesus on a daily basis, and yet he denied he knew Jesus three times in one night. He repented and went on to become the lead Apostle.

Yeah, it takes a bit more than denying Christ three times out of fear, to a Son of Perdition make. Had Paul had more knowledge of what he was actually doing when he helped stone Stephen, he would have been in danger. A fact that he realized later on, which had a very sobering influence on him for the rest of his life.

[inquiringmind]

Lets try an illustration.

If I teach "If you caught a man robbing a store at gunpoint and you were perfect you could be justified in shooting him- but since none of us are perfect perhaps we should have compassion and spare his life so he can repent and we can be found free of guilt.

Then someone came along and said,

Kevin says "If you caught a man robbing a store at gunpoint and you were perfect you could be justified in shooting him..."

Now does Kevin really advocate shooting all robbers or does he have a larger point illustrated by the whole story?

Kevin obviously has a larger point illustrated by the whole story, as did BY when you look at what he said in context (and I thank you again for providing the whole quote in context.)