Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsBlood Atonement
Blood Atonement - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 27th May, 2006 - 5:17pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 16 - Views: 1678
Blood Atonement
I would like to discuss the topic of Blood Atonement that many early leaders taught but that the Church strongly denies in 1978. Let me start by quoting several things Brigham Young taught with regards to this topic:
| QUOTE |
| "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground ... I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them not destroy them. ... I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood" |
Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 53 (1856
| QUOTE |
| "For some the only way to be saved and exalted with the Gods is to have their own blood shed. "Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?" |
Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 219 (1857)
| QUOTE |
| That is what Jesus Christ meant. ... I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins." Loving our neighbor as ourselves means spilling his blood if that is what is necessary |
Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 220 (1857)
| QUOTE |
| If you find your brother in bed with your wife, and you put a javelin through them both, you would be justified and they would atoned for their sins and be received into the kingdom of God. ... "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;" |
Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247 (1856)
Now, we know there are two sins that the atonement of Christ do not "cleanse", one is denying of the Holy Ghost and the other one is murder. Reading these quotes I think Brigham Young is very clear concerning the issue of the need of Blood Atonement. I also understand the concept of Church-state being one. Yet, I just do not fully comprehend why the Church tried to rationalized this issue by just saying that he was talking "theorically", how do they know that? He was given examples of his time and not in the times of Moses as Bruce Mc Conkie pointed out.
Let me put some extracts of a letter that the First Presidency asked to Bruce Mc Conkie to answer in 1978 in response to an inquire about this issue. You can read the whole letter by just clicking on the link below:
| QUOTE |
| In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person. These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice. However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation. It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member or a non-member of the Church. There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins. Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses. From the day of Joseph Smith to the present there has been no single instance of so-called blood atonement under any pretext. Brigham Young and the others were speaking of a theoretical principle that operated in ages past and not in either their or our day. As I recall, Brigham Young's illustrations were taken from the day of Moses and the history of ancient Israel and could not be applied today. |
LDS_forever note: If you read the quotes, you would see that Brigham Young was giving examples of his own time. contrary to what Bruce Mc Conkie said on this letter.
And continues...
| QUOTE |
| You asked if the statements of our leaders of the past, including those found in the Journal of Discourses, represent the official stand of the Church. The answer, as indicated in the comments above set forth, is that they do not. The statements pertain to a theoretical principle that has been neither revealed to nor practiced by us. I repeat: Except for the atonement of Christ, which is or should be a part of the creeds of all Christian churches; and except for the use of the term "blood atonement" as a synonym--nothing more--of "capital punishment" where "enlightened" members of the Church are concerned, there is no such a doctrine in this dispensation as blood atonement. |
https://www.shields-research.org/General/blood_atonement.htm
I just do not see how what Brigham Young taught as blood atonement has a relationship with "capital punishment". It just does not "click".
What are your thoughts?
Sponsored Links:
Atonement Blood
I completely agree with you. Blood Atonement is not related to Capital Punishment. I have never gotten the impression from anything I read by Brigham Young or anyone else, that they suggested that the State or the Church should impose Blood Atonement.
My impression has always been that if a person purposely breaks their covenants, it would be easier for them to atone for themselves rather than go though what they will have to otherwise to fully repent.
I don't know how this works at all. It seems to me that repentance is always meant to be easier in mortality than afterwards, so how could a person who died in order to atone for his own sins fully repent? Unless the very act of giving his life IS the fulness of the repentance process for him.
Anyway, I find it very interesting that 1978 seems to be a banner year for denial of previous doctrines.
Blood Atonement Studies Doctrine Mormon
| QUOTE |
| My impression has always been that if a person purposely breaks their covenants, it would be easier for them to atone for themselves rather than go though what they will have to otherwise to fully repent |
I assume you are talking about murder or denying of the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, within that same letter Mc Conkie quotes Pres. Wilford Woodruff who said the following:
| QUOTE |
| "It is a fundamental doctrine of our creed that a murderer cannot be forgiven; that he 'hath not eternal life abiding in him'; that if a member of our Church, having received the light of the Holy Spirit, commits this capital crime, he will not receive forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come. The revelations of God to the Church abound in commandments forbidding us to shed blood." |
So it seems (based on this statement) that not even shedding the blood of the perpetrator can do anything about what was committed, even if he repents since there is no "forgiveness" whatsoever for someone who commit such acts.
| QUOTE |
| Anyway, I find it very interesting that 1978 seems to be a banner year for denial of previous doctrines |
What is more interesting about it is that Mc Conkie tries to deny what Brigham Young taught yet he quotes from Wilford Woodruff just because it seems convenient. Again, a matter of double standards just as the example and the statement given about the Journal of Discourses.
Atonement Blood
Based upon what Brigham Young said about adultery, I was thinking more along the lines of having received the more advanced ordinances and covenants. I really can't answer about murder, as that is such a VERY complex subject. I know of at least one person who was convicted of multiple murders, who is an active member of the Church, because she was under severe delusions at the time.
Blood Atonement is one of those extremely murky areas, where Brigham Young and others obviously taught the doctrine, but left an awful lot of information out of the discussions. I think it may even have more to do with those who have received the 2nd Anointing.
What I am positive of is that it was (is) NOT what the anti-Mormons like to bring up, making it sound like we had (or have) bands of assassins out there hunting down apostates and killing them.
Atonement Blood
That's another interesting thing. I thought that only two sins: murder and denying of the Holy Ghost are considered the sins who are not going to be forgiving here or in the next life, yet Brigham Young thought necessary to teach that Adultery fits somehow that category since he taught it in relation with the Blood Atonement making it kind of clear that repentance alone would not help to "redeem" the person of such sin.
Blood Atonement
I don't see any indication in this subject coming from Brigham Young that adultery is an unforgivable offense, only that for those who have entered into sacred covenants and then committed this sin, that they have forsaken, on their own, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and so must do something particular in order to atone.
It is very important to keep in mind that Blood Atonement is ONLY in affect for those who have entered into special eternal covenants. It does not apply to either nonmembers or those who have not entered the covenants. I doubt that it applies to those of us who have only been endowed and sealed.
Blood Atonement
| QUOTE |
| I don't see any indication in this subject coming from Brigham Young that adultery is an unforgivable offense, only that for those who have entered into sacred covenants and then committed this sin, that they have forsaken, on their own, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and so must do something particular in order to atone. |
What about this reference that I put before?
| QUOTE |
| If you find your brother in bed with your wife, and you put a javelin through them both, you would be justified and they would atoned for their sins and be received into the kingdom of God. ... "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;" |
Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247
Blood Atonement Mormon Doctrine Studies
That says exactly what I did. That those who have entered into eternal covenants, then commit adultery, have forsaken Christ's Atonement, and now must atone for this sin themselves. So, the sin isn't unforgivable, but it is very difficult to receive forgiveness of it.
| QUOTE |
| The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; |
So, it is possible to atone for it, it just takes an unusual process to do so.
TOPIC: Blood Atonement