Last week The Associated Press reported,
Defense asks for no Mormons on murder trial jury
OGDEN, Utah — An attorney for a man charged with aggravated murder have filed a motion to keep off the jury any members of the Mormon church who might believe that the only way for him to be forgiven by God is to be executed.
Sharon Sipes, a public defender for Riqo Perea, filed the motion in 2nd District Court. She says a belief among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the only way to receive true forgiveness from God after committing a serious offense is to shed one’s own blood.
Sipes says that although the church has indicated blood atonement isn’t part of official doctrine, members widely believe it.
Perea, 21, is charged with two counts of aggravated murder in a gang-related 2007 shooting. Perea could face the death penalty. (Wednesday, 11 February 2009)
Mormon leaders unapologetically taught the doctrine of individual blood atonement from the early years of the LDS Church into the twentieth century.
Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith said,
“I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God…” (March 1843, Documentary History of the Church 5:296).
LDS Apostle Jedediah M. Grant, second counselor to Brigham Young, taught,
“I say, there are men and women that I would advise to got to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye … I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood … Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid” (September 1856, Journal of Discourses 4:49-51).
Mormonism’s second prophet Brigham Young told the Latter-day Saints:
“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, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins, and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world … Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is taken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin he knows will deprive him of the exaltation he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but would say, `shed my blood that I might be saved and exalted with the Gods?’ All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?” (February 1857, Journal of Discourses 4:219).
Joseph Fielding Smith, the man who became Mormonism’s tenth prophet, wrote,
“Man may commit certain grievous sins–according to his light and knowledge–that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone–so far as the power lies–for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail… Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf” (circa 1904, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:134-135).
Then LDS Seventy (later LDS Apostle) Bruce R. McConkie wrote,
“But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins” (1966, Mormon Doctrine, 92).
BYU professor Robert Millet was once asked about the early LDS teachings on blood atonement. As he tells the story, statements made by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Jedediah Grant prompted the inquiry. Dr. Millet replied,
“I’m aware of those statements. Yes, they were taught, but they do not represent the doctrine of our Church” (2003, “What is Our Doctrine,” The Religious Educator, Volume 4, Number 3, 18).
It’s no wonder at all that many Mormons believe in individual blood atonement and mistakenly suppose it to be an official doctrine of the LDS Church. If it’s true that many Mormons believe this teaching, it’s wise for any defense attorney representing someone charged with a capital crime to choose a jury devoid of Latter-day Saints. While these folks would probably be smart, honest and thoughtful jurors, it could be risky if they agree with Jedediah Grant who said, “We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him…” (Deseret News, July 27, 1854).
If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins,
He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:7-9)
—
For further reading:
Blood Atonement – If It Was Never Taught, Why Do So Many Mormons Believe It?
“But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins” (1966, Mormon Doctrine, 92).
Oddly enough, McConkie and I are in agreement about this….though at odds as to WHAT that sin might be…… one of us is in for a big surprise…..
Sharon,
It seems to me that Mormon “critics” are forever mired in the 1800’s. The concept of Blood Atonement is not official LDS doctrine (as Dr. Millet clearly states) no more than the concept of slavery is now a part of the doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention (notwithstanding the fact that slavery was a foundational issue for the splitting away of the SBC from its northern counterpart). Today in 2009, inasmuch as there are very few Southern Baptists who adhere to the concept of racial segregation there are very few LDS members who adhere to this concept of Blood Atonement.
This is 2009 not 1850! The LDS Church today has progressed significantly from its origins and does not practice or preach concepts such as Blood Atonement or polygamy in the same manner that the Southern Baptist Convention no longer preaches a defense of the practice of slavery.
Notwithstanding the plain and clear fact that the concept of Blood Atonement is not LDS doctrine (no more so than polygamy) this does not stop Mormon”critics” from continually trying to inject these long outdated issues into current debate. Such tactics are as disingenuous as they are they are dishonest and constitute a clear and deliberate misrepresentation of LDS doctrine.
I believe in the death penalty. I don’t claim to represent LDS on this matter, but I really have no problem with this idea in general. Our society has become too focused on whether a murderer can be rehabilitated. In doing so, we completely loose site of the idea of justice.
If I take the life of another person, it is impossible for me to make restitution to any degree- I cannot restore that life. To me, it doesn’t matter if I can be “rehabilitated” to the degree that I never kill again.
Even if you remove religion from the equation, the concept of justice, I believe, demands the life of him who killed. That is the closest a murderer can come to paying their debt. If I did all I could to repent after committing such a crime, I hope I would want to offer my life toward this end.
I really don’t think this doctrine is weird. My opinion isn’t really based on it. I don’t know that offering your own life after murdering will ever truly “make-up” for the crime, but it is the most a person can do.
Should all people who support the death penalty be excluded from juries in murder trials? Rediculous. Is this article suggesting such a thing? Then why not exclude all but those who oppose the death penalty?
fof
SteveH
How does this work in the Mormon Church? I cannot speak for the Southern Baptists but the Presbyterian Churches explain that our ancestors misused scripture, and that their interpretations of Scripture regarding slavery and segregation were in error. We would go on to say that man is fallen and sinful and prone to errors and that this should drive us to prayerfully study Scripture all the more.
How does a Mormon explain an error in doctrine like blood atonement made by generations of prophets?
Steve,
Here are a few problems with what you said or did not say.
You never address the fact that JS and BY and others did teach these things.
Now I have talked with many LDS and I strongly suspect, since you cannot deny what they said, you will simply brush it off as, they did not say, Thus saith the Lord.
So before you pull that, let me point out this, THE LDS believe as Doctrine Today the King Follet Discourse given by JS from the JoD, Yet he did not say, This is Doctrine because the Lord said so.
So why is it, you and other LDS go back to teachings from the 1800’s when it suits your fancy, but when we do it, you say, it is not true?
Then, you can say, this is not Church Doctrine, but it seems we have LDS who do believe it to be. So since LDS do believe it, that tells me, JS And BY and others taught it as fact, So did they teach false Doctrine? If not, then it must be true, other wise, why would even One LDS to this day believe it?
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems after JS was Shot in Jail, He paid for his sins by shedding His own blood, to bad thats not good enough in the eyes of the Lord. Rick b
Gundeck,
Unlike evangelical denominations, the LDS Church does not prescribe to the notion of biblical inerrancy (or more accurately slavishly following one’s particular interpretation of the bible) nor does the LDS Church hold to the Catholic notion of papal infallibility. In short, we accept that prophets of God are human and just like the rest of us are capable of personal weaknesses, foibles and errors in judgment.
The fact that Brigham Young at one point preached a concept known as the Adam/God theory does not mean that his personal musings are accepted as LDS doctrine today. This holds the same for the rather peripheral concept of Blood Atonement. In other instances the LDS Church can change a particular policy or practice (i.e. polygamy or priesthood for all worthy males) after much prayer and direct revelation from the Lord. A change in policy or practice or doctrine does not negate the revelatory foundation of the Church.
As an illustration of this point consider the rather dramatic changes in religious policy, practice, and doctrine which occurred in the meridian of time in the early Christian Church. Very significant changes in doctrine and religious practice were authorized by the Lord and administered by His Apostles (i.e. the early Christians were no longer required to follow the Mosaic Law such as circumcision for all males, or the prohibition on pork and other “unclean” foods etc.). The fact that these changes were authorized and occurred does not diminish the revelatory nature of Christianity nor does it diminish the apostolic authority of Peter, James, and John and the other apostles.
Similarly, the occurrence of changes in religious policy, practice, and doctrine in this day and age (the Last Dispensation) as authorized by Christ does not diminish the apostolic authority of His duly authorized servants (prophets and apostles).
(i.e. the early Christians were no longer required to follow the Mosaic Law such as circumcision for all males, or the prohibition on pork and other “unclean” foods etc.).
that’s right, circumcision, diet, sabbath observance, temple rituals…..hey, what the ..????
preach it bro……
GERmIT
SteveH,
Is it your claim that Joseph Smith and the prophets that taught blood atonement were in error? Isn’t it just as likely that you and Robert Millet are in error and that Joseph Smith was correct? Why do you claim that blood atonement is a “rather peripheral concept”? I am not sure I would think it was peripheral if someone killed me trying to help me out atoning for my sins.
I do not see the connection between the Church pre-incarnation compared to the Church post Pentecost. What happened between 1966 and 2003 to change God’s mind about the necessity of blood atonement?
I like the unnecessary swipe at biblical inerrancy but you have confused inerrancy with sufficiency, a common mistake.
I know a few people here in Australia where we do not have the death penalty, who strongly believe that murderers should face the death penalty and that rapists should be physically castrated. These people are non-religious (ie not LDS, Muslim, or other religions that have preached blood atonement of sorts in the past) but they have very strong convictions on this matter. So should these people be excluded from the trial as well?
The lawyer is just doing what they are paid for – to represent their customer and try and keep them out of gaol. The longer they can protract the events (ie court injunctions, having hearings to stop certain people from being on jury or witness stand, etc) the more the solicitor gets paid. Its all about money really, not religious beliefs.
As far as blood atonement goes, I do not believe that it is ‘official’ doctrine to perform capitol punishment especially if it is not the common law at the time. But it is taught in church that the past leaders have preached this principle and from the response of my friends and family, most agree with it. But so do quite a few of my non-religious friends as I stated above. So it is not indement to the LDS church only, and to portray it as such is misrepresenting things.
FOF,
You stated the following: “Even if you remove religion from the equation, the concept of justice, I believe, demands the life of him who killed. ”
Examine the following from the blog “daily atheist”:
“Opposition to the death penalty is lowest among white mainline Protestants (13%) and white evangelicals (15%), while it is notably higher among white Catholics (27%). Opposition is highest among seculars (29%).”
PewResearch, June 26, 2007 (Notice that the quoted stats are from 2005)
The support for death penality seems to be in decline though. (Wonder if it has something to do with secularisation?) ”
This is from wikipedia under “list of capital crimes in the torah”
“According to the Torah (or Mosaic Law), these are the offenses which may merit the death penalty in a Jewish major court of 23 judges.
Murder, applies to Noachides as well (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17-23, Numbers 35:9-34)
Striking a parent (Exodus 21:15)
Cursing a parent (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9)
The “degenerate son” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7)
Negligent homicide, specifically by ox-goring (Exodus 21:28-32)
Sorcery and Augury (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
Bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16)
Sacrificing to gods other than God alone (Exodus 22:20, Leviticus 27:29)
Sabbath breaking (Exodus 31:12-17, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
Sacrificing to Molech, probably Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:1-5)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
Incest (Leviticus 20:11-12)
Male homosexual sexual relations (Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22, see also Leviticus 18)
Marrying your wife’s mother (Leviticus 20:14)
Prostitution by the daughter of a priest (Leviticus 21:9)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16)
worshipping Baal Peor (Numbers 25:1-9)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:1-10, 17:2-7, 18:20-22)
Contempt of court (Deuteronomy 17:8-13)
False witness to a capital crime (Deuteronomy 19:15-21)
Unchastity among those engaged to marry (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) ”
Clearly the concept of justice has changed in relation to capital punishment. Although some of the offenses do not appear to have anything to do with demanding an equal payment for the offense.
I think there would be a lot less people in the world if capital punishment was applied to everyone who has ever broken the sabbath day. How many people have cursed their parents, or have rebelled against them? Anyone involved in the occult could be put to death, I suppose this could include experimenting with ouija boards which is popular. Some people put meditation and yoga in the realm of the occult, especially if it involves prayer to a god outside of the bible. Anyone who fornicates before marriage could also be killed.
I don’t think an atheist would review the dealth penalty in the same manner. Logically from an atheist point of view the death penalty cannot make a payment for anything, although it might seem ‘even’ to friends and relatives who survive the victim. This seems closer to revenge than justice. The payment for sin is totally outside of the question for an atheist when it comes to the death penatly. Generally secularisation has led to more freedoms and rights for humanity than what religion has done.
As expected, our Mormon friends are so quick to “throw under the bus” their former prophets including the one that they sing a hymnal song to – Joseph Smith – when it comes to “well…uh…that is not the doctrine of the church today”. Joseph Smith said it. He either told the truth or he didn’t. He was either a prophet of God or he wasn’t. Did he bear false witness? Mormons today creating their own individual brand of Mormonism is quite interesting to me. They want to pick and choose what teachings from certain prophets they want. This is one liberty that Christians don’t have. We can’t pick and choose from the Bible what teachings we want and then throw out the ones that don’t make us feel good.
For example, this past weekend I was talking to Mormon missionaries and I asked them if God was an exalted man as taught by Joseph Smith in addition to many others prophets after him, referenced again and again in LDS manuals and writings, the King Follet Discourse, etc. What was the answer? Silence…then this statement: “Well, that was only Joseph Smith’s opinion”. It’s laughable the intellectual dishonesty that goes on! He did go on to state that he believed that opinion. I asked the young man if this statement about god being an exalted man was stated at conference, then would it be authoritative? He said “yes”. I then pulled out the November 2008 Ensign. While I was pulling it out of my bag he tried to change his answer. It was too late. I read to him page 75 which reaffirmed the teaching. I asked him to show me this teaching in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. He couldn’t. He said when he found it he would call me.
With this issue about murder…fine – let’s ditch the past prophets and look at LDS scriptures. D&C 42:18 & 79 makes it very clear that there is no forgiveness for the sin of murder. That means that the atonement of Christ as viewed by past prophets is still in effect because it means that the blood of Christ cannot forgive of all sins which contradicts the Bible that says the opposite (1 John 1:9; Hebrews 10:17).
The Mormon god can’t make up his mind. In the Book of Mormon the blood of Christ did cover and forgive people for the sin of murder. Look at Alma 24:8-12. Murderers were also accepted among the people of Nephi and included in their church (Alma 27:6,8,22-23 & 27).
I would also like for our Mormon friends to explain to us how Moses showed up at the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3) when he is in fact a murderer himself (Exodus 2:12)? How did Moses get there if he is permanently housed in spirit prison because there is no forgiveness for him and the only hope he can have after paying the full debt for his sin and the Mormon judgement is the telestial kingdom (Mormon Doctrine, page 520)?
As a law student, I think this is interesting, and a bit funny, too. Surely, this lawyer doesn’t want a jury in favor of the death penalty against her client. But asking for that in Ogden? A few legal ramifications from that… Oh well.
But as to the question of blood atonement, the bigger point of the post, there are many directions to go. Historically do we look at the past doctrine (taught as doctrine, not just opinion). Do we look at how the doctrine undermines what Christ did for us? Or how about the ramifications in and of the doctrine itself?
Each of these is a big topic in and of themselves…
For whatever it is worth, already there is someone here distancing himself from the doctrines of the past. He tries to compare these ideas with Southern Baptists and their anti-black stances. Far from the same things. He also dismisses points taught by their leaders that they themselves warned against the followers not listening because the teaching would affect their salvation.
I also find it a strange coincidence that the state of Utah had the firing squad as an option for execution up until March 2004. Could it be that this was in place just in case a Mormon got into trouble and his blood could be spilled thus satisfying the teaching of blood atonement as taught in the past by the Mormon Church?
I wonder if John D. Lee had a sense of spiritual relief floating around in his mind (blood atonement) thinking that since his blood was going to be spilled at his execution by firing squad in 1877 that he would be set to still inherit the celestial kingdom and be with his relative that betrayed him (Brigham Young) for the murders at Mountain Meadows Massacre?
Obviously we are talking about two very different things here. Blood Atonement is not the same thing as corporal punishment or the death penalty. One has eternal religious ramifications, according to LDS teachings, while the other is about governmental law.
I think it would be helpful if the LDS here would be a little more specific as to exactly which sins are not able to be covered by the blood of Christ. In my reading, I can only find one.
Mark 3:28-29
28I tell you the truth, ALL THE SINS and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.
Enki wrote “This seems closer to revenge than justice.”
Quite possibly – is justice the tempering of revenge?
As far as Biblical prescriptions for the death penalty, I do request that some respect be given to cultural circumstances. In the ancient world, punishment had to be of a capital nature because of the absence of a prison system. Also, though atheists might object to the worshipping of an ‘unsanctioned’ god, we would do well to remember that Israel was struggling to create a national identity, and that the worship of foreign gods was perceived as something similar to a clear and present threat to its national identity (I’m using a human-perspective argument for the sake of a humanistic point of view).
Also, if justice is no more than a human invention, then humans can re-invent and un-invent it as they see fit. Given that justice is a public concept, then the consensus of the public is a key factor. We might rail against the perceived brutality of the folks in Biblical times because the public consensus has swung away from capital punishment (which, I think is a good thing), but we find little evidence that they thought that their justice was grossly inappropriate. If we take the concept of a “higher” justice out of the equation and exclude everything but contemporary consensus, then what right do we have to judge the justice systems of our ancestors? Perhaps our children’s children might turn around and consider us barbaric for not enforcing enough capital punishment; who knows?
You conclude that “Generally secularisation has led to more freedoms and rights for humanity than what religion has done.” I submit that this is secularist propaganda and my reason for doing so is that it is highly selective with what evidence it permits. In the witness box against the secularists are the Nazi Holocaust and Russian Purges, which were thoroughly the children of secular and atheistic paradigms. You might be forgiven for classifying either as a result of a religion-of-state, but they are far removed from the Judeao-Christian values of the Bible.
Finally, this last point does not tally with the totality my experience of “religious” people and I’d wager that this would be true of most of the posters here, whether LDS or whatever. I’m not suggesting that this is your view, but to assert that religion is silly and dangerous and is propagated by people who are either stupid or evil does a dreadful misrepresentation for the people I know. Though we have our faults, Christians, in my experience, don’t just say they care for others, they actively put their beliefs into practice.
In the last couple of weeks, one of the national newspapers here in Australia published a survey about who were putting in the contributions to charitable work, in terms of money and time. The leaders in this field were Christians, and in particular Christian women. When the secular atheists top the list, perhaps I’ll start to listen to this argument more closely.
1 John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
I guess all of us are in for it….. but for the saving Grace of God.
We are saved and Jesus paid it ALL , to reject some of His blood is to Reject All
Matthew 22:11 Saw there a man which had not a wedding garment. It is said to be a custom in the East, even at the present day, for the host to present his guests with robes of honor. Every saint is robed, not in his own righteousness, but in the white robes of Christ’s righteousness. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Ga 3:27).
Steve H, are you kidding? Lets gets some things straight first the baptist do not claim
authority over and above the bible, and there statement of faith may change with time but they dont claim special divine authority as the only true church so you are stretching it. they also dont require members to believe there statement of faith in order to recieve salvation or baptism ect….. it is a guide but not a requirment.
The Mormon church claims God came out of his way to restore his true church on the earth exactly how it was estabilshed, to say in needs to “progress” is something new.
I do not mean to be forward or harsh but your statement is very stunning to me and strange as it would make you out of step with your church leaving me to wonder if your a mormon convert or inactive?
You cant pick and choose in mormonism, its all or nothing. and to bring up all the 1800’s stuff are you kidding go the the family tree and you will find in journals alot of this 1800 stuff had gone on well into the 1900’s. You claim the mormon church was created by God through Js, how could he have gotten it so wrong? Did he not know the future, did he not desire to lay a foundation? If your foundation is off the whole thing is off.
and as for people misreprsenting the church, the church proves itself to be false, you are just how can i put it enlisting Such tactics that are as disingenuous as they are are dishonest and constitute a clear and deliberate misrepresentation of LDS doctrine and your doing it to yourself by not taking an honest look at the bible cover to cover and asking God if the Bible is “true”
Kim
(SteveH says:
February 16, 2009 at 11:26 am
Sharon,
It seems to me that Mormon “critics” are forever mired in the 1800’s. The concept of Blood Atonement is not official LDS doctrine (as Dr. Millet clearly states) no more than the concept of slavery is now a part of the doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention (notwithstanding the fact that slavery was a foundational issue for the splitting away of the SBC from its northern counterpart). Today in 2009, inasmuch as there are very few Southern Baptists who adhere to the concept of racial segregation there are very few LDS members who adhere to this concept of Blood Atonement.
This is 2009 not 1850! The LDS Church today has progressed significantly from its origins and does not practice or preach concepts such as Blood Atonement or polygamy in the same manner that the Southern Baptist Convention no longer preaches a defense of the practice of slavery.
Notwithstanding the plain and clear fact that the concept of Blood Atonement is not LDS doctrine (no more so than polygamy) this does not stop Mormon”critics” from continually trying to inject these long outdated issues into current debate. Such tactics are as disingenuous as they are they are dishonest and constitute a clear and deliberate misrepresentation of LDS doctrine. )
SteveH said “In other instances the LDS Church can change a particular policy or practice (i.e. polygamy or priesthood for all worthy males) after much prayer and direct revelation from the Lord”
Personally, I find this a source of hope. Who knows where these changes will take the LDS Church? The movement has been steadily shedding some of its less defensible public practises (as noted above) and the Freemasonic influences on its rituals, and leaders like Stephen Millett seem to be pulling in an Arminian direction. Perhaps the next step will be to shift the position of Joseph Smith to that of an inspirational figurehead and the protests of “apostasy” from the hard-liners will be steadfastly ignored.
Maybe the movement will find its feet in the exploration of the Bible, which would be most welcome. On the other hand, it could turn out to be just another bland, featureless Oprah-Winfrey-ism.
SteveH says: In short, we accept that prophets of God are human and just like the rest of us are capable of personal weaknesses, foibles and errors in judgment.
the LDS Church can change a particular policy or practice (i.e. polygamy or priesthood for all worthy males) after much prayer and direct revelation from the Lord. A change in policy or practice or doctrine does not negate the revelatory foundation of the Church.
Oh, but it does!!
A government is allowed to evolve and become better because it is man-made. If LDS has to evolve to become better, then it is also man-made. It’s not from God.
Kim,
In D&C 1:30 it says that the LDS church is “…the only true and LIVING church upon the face of the whole earth…” For something to be living it needs to grow and progress forward, otherwise it either atrophies or stagnates. We believe in modern/current revelation as you know, this is what keeps the church progressing forward in the path of God. So what SteveH said about the church progressing is not strange to the LDS community, nor does it mean that he is inactive in the LDS church.
Enki and Martin,
Maybe capitol punishment for murder is just letting the punishment fit the crime and nothing to do with vengeance/revenge.
SoYo,
The only sin that we teach that cannot receive forgiveness for is denying the Holy Ghost – and as you pointed out this is in the Bible.
There are 2 other sins that are very difficult to gain forgiveness for AFTER one has received a testimony of the truth from the Holy Ghost and they are – (1) Murder and (2) Adultery (not sure about fornication here but it also might fit). All of this is found in the D&C 76:35, Alma 39:5-6. One can obtain forgiveness, but a part of that repentance process is to forfeit one’s life – ie blood atonement.
Read Romans 1:18-32, especially the first part of verse 32 “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” My understanding of this is that those who know God and His truth but still go out of their way to commit sin are “worthy of death” because they are denying the testimony given to them by the Holy Ghost (ie denying the Holy Ghost). But on the list given are murderers. fornicators and adulterers amongst others. But it’s only after receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost that one is held more accountable by God.
Kim: thanks a lot girl, I have FIVE,,,yeah FIVE brothers…..and now I’m doubting my salvation….
just kidding: good posts
GERMIT
Well,
Judging by some of the comments (some astute others inane) it appears that my post has generated some controversy.
I must admit that I am amazed at how some individuals who most obviously know very little about the LDS Church, its doctrine, its policies, or culture consider themselves to be experts on Mormonism. Notwithstanding the fact that such individuals possess no more than a cursory knowledge of the subject, who obviously have not read the LDS standard works (let alone studied them over a lifetime), who are ignorant of even the basic tenets of the LDS faith, who have never set foot inside an LDS chapel, who are largely unfamiliar with LDS culture and policies, yet somehow they consider themselves experts on the LDS perspective on matters of profound theological import and pontificate at will on any given LDS topic. The hubris is overwhelming.
My main point s that religious policy, practice, and doctrine can and will be changed to meet changing circumstances provided that such changes are duly authorized by the Lord. This has always been case (i.e. the cessation of the Law of Moses with the advent of Christ’s atonement) and always will be the case. It is the Lord’s prerogative to change religious policy, practice, and doctrine. The foundation of the LDS Church is revelation between God and man. There is no cessation to God’s revelation. The cannon of revelation is not closed. Christ continues to speak to us and He personally directs His Church. This is the great strength and power of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One can disagree with the notion of modern day revelation but that does not alter the fact that God continues to speak to us today.
Yes, I know that this is an audacious statement. Nonetheless, it is a statement which can be verified if one is willing to put their faith and trust in Christ and with a sincere and humble heart ask Him directly.
Steve H,
You mention the cessation of the law of Moses as an example of how God has shifted gears. Are you speaking of Pau’s teachings in the book of Romans? If so, I have heard that this is only Paul’s opion, and what are your thoughts on that particular topic?
Ultimately, I care less about those thoughts than about the supposed God adjusting his plan according to circumstances in the world. Of course, OT laws and NT laws absolutely play into the discussion, but you forget one important aspect of the discussion: the connection between the two.
God did not “change course”. He has actually been terribly consistent. If you look at the laws of Moses, they are intended to keep us clean. Christ himself now keeps us clean. There was not a change of course there. Further, Christ was foretold long before he came, so it is not quite accurate to state that God changed his mind.
The moral of all this, God has not and does not change the rules as the times change. His rules stay the same.
Now, we as humans have may have disagreed on how to apply them, and far too often failed to live up to his standards. But this is not the same God himself changing them.
This, I think, is a premise of Christianity Mormons get wrong very often in their defenses. God is unchangeable and immutable, and does not change his mind on issues like polygamy and the Seed of Cain, or the blood atonement or Adam/God or any number of issues.
Oh, and SteveH, do you reall think that Christians believe God has stopped talking to us?
SteveH and others,
I have severe problems with supersessionism in the sense that God “changed the rules”. In context, this usually comes up in response to the question “why don’t Christians circumsize their sons?”; (wrong) answer – “because God changed the rules”.
Briefly, my first objection is that the NT nowhere states that the Law of Moses should cease to operate. Jesus himself spoke about not changing one jot or tittle (Matt 5:18). Paul states that Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4), but I think he’s talking about the conclusion of the story, rather than the cessation of the system. As I read it, the overall message is to let Jews and Gentiles retain their cultural markers, but to recognise that the Jewish cultural markers, in particular, find their fulfilment in Christ.
My second objection is that the “God changes the rules through his prophet” argument has been used before, specifically in Islam. Joseph Smith and Mohammed both use this paradigm, but there are many other similarities between the two that are too numerous to list here. The underlying problem with this paradigm is that it assumes that the principal purpose of the prophet (yes, Jesus is a prophet) was to set rules or ordinances by which we should live. It ignores the NT dimension that the purpose of Jesus’ ministry was principally about revealing God. (P.S. one area in which LDS and Evs differ is that, generally, the former look for a revelation of religion in the pages of scripture, whereas the latter look for a revelation of God).
Finally, the argument that I have no clue about something because I don’t practice it is flawed. For example, I don’t practice adultery, but I know enough about it to know what draws people into it and what impacts it has on their lives. Furthermore, the assumption that one has to be in the “right” church to “get” the message is offensive to Scripture, as well as being unbearably snobbish.
Can you imagine how the story of the Bible would have turned out if God had said “I’m not going to tell you the important stuff because you’re not properly signed up”? On the contrary “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight” (Col 1:21-22).
Yup, its the “all about Christ” show, and what he does for us.
Ralph,
I question how you can call a major change in Gods plan for salvation such as doing away with blood atonement growth and progression forward? I can accept that people come to a fuller development of a doctrine, or a better understanding of Scripture. I can accept that people discover errors from past generations. What I have a hard time with, is understanding how a doctrine revealed by a prophet and taught for generations by your Church can just be abandoned. That is what I call repudiation of Brigham Young and all who taught blood atonement, not growth and progression. If your Church is fine with abandoning doctrines revealed by past prophets what other doctrines have you done away with? What parts of the New Testament has your Church grown and progressed beyond?
I asked this same question to SteveH, how does this work? The prophet Brigham Young taught blood atonement, the Church taught blood atonement, and now it is gone. Frankly it is not blood atonement that interests me is is how your Church can deny a doctrine today that was taught by a prophet yesterday.
Romans 1:32 does not have anything to do with the death penalty or how hard it is to be forgiven of a particular sin. Romans 1:20 explains that all men know there is a God because of His creation. Paul then goes on to explain that despite this knowledge of God, given to all men in general revelation, they deny the true God and exchange Him for created things. Because of this sinful denial of God, He allows gives them up to their sins. Romans 1:32 is telling us that those who deny God deserve the wrath of God. All men know there is a God, simply because of creation, those who deny this are deserving of his wrath.
Romans 1:16-17 on the other hand tells us that the Gospel is the power of God’s salvation, the righteousness of God is revealed by faith and the righteous will live by faith.
Ralph said
So in the process of Changing, it means that Doctrine Changes and theirfore God contradicts himself?
Steve said
I am guessing that your talking here about the LDS?
I ask if your talking about LDS Because it seems the LDS have no clue about what you teach or believe.
I hear or read, We LDS do not teach or Believe Adam God, Or God was once a man for example, then when we Give quotes for these and other things we hear, Well that was their Opinion not Doctrine. Yet when we show these things were said, then were accused of taking it out of context or going back to the 1800,s for things.
Why is it LDS can use the same sources, IE the JoD for the King Follet Discourse but we cannot use it for Adam God? And why is it LDS claim, We go back 200 years and thats not fair, I go back 2000 plus years to see what Jesus said, If I can look back 2000 years to see what Jesus said or taught, Why cannot LDS go back 200 years to what their Prophet Said, and it was your Prophet claimed He was equal to or above Jesus, if thats the case we should be able to look at what he taught.
Have you ever read the 14 Fundamentals for following the prophet, If that stuff is true, then that explains why you dont follow JS, Yet at the same time, it shows why your doctrine changes and how you guys blow off things smith taught. Rick b
SteveH,
So in your religion is it reasonable to assume that God will change his mind tomorrow and do away with your current plan of salvation, temples, priesthoods, prophets etc?
Martin said
Martin was replying to something an LDS member said, so let me add this one thing to it. Have you read the Story of Abram? Before God called him, he was a pagan that worshiped False gods and Idols.
According to the LDS logic, God should have never called him, since He was a pagan and did not follow God, then after God called him, he was still slow to listen. Rick b
“According to the LDS logic, God should have never called him, since He was a pagan and did not follow God, then after God called him, he was still slow to listen. Rick b ”
Could also put Paul into this example. He actively sought out Christians to kill them.
Martin,
Yes, that is correct. I had the thought today that I missed that point, not seeing it until hours later. Yes its probably more accurate that the death penalty for certain sins in the O.T. isn’t really for revenge, or perhaps not even payment for sin, but to deter behaviors which were not fitting for the objectives and holiness of Jehovah. The removal of people by death and other means (for not obeying the holiness code)could have contributed to the creation of the jewish ethnicity, along with other requirements from the holiness code.
Deut. 14: 2
” 2 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. ”
Its completely possible that the human sense of justice can and will change, and reinvent or uninvent. I think its just like anything people create, or modify as they see fit. Unfortunately your really on to something. With increasing population in the world, its possible that people in the future could find it just easier to eliminate people who are not seen as positive contributors in one way or another.
Religion is like any other part of the human equation, its subject to change. If someone doesn’t like some particular belief or practice they find another religion or philosphy, or create their own movement. New findings in anthropology and archeology could totally change the way people understand a particular passage of scripture, christian or otherwise. This could mean updating translation, totally reworking doctrines and practices. The same finding could also change how secular people also see the world. A religous sense of justice could also change.
I am not so sure that the Nazis were as secular as you state. “Positive christianity” was an element used by the Nazis. Its not orthodox christianity, but it did take advantage of and redirected existing anti-semitism that existed in religion in europe for centuries. Publications such as Der Stürmer and Völkischer Beobachter stressed the “Nordic character of Jesus”. Its interesting to note that the Nazi party made statements that positive christianity did not necessarily conflict with traditional christian churches.
“We demand the freedom of all religious denominations in the State insofar as they do not endanger its existence or violate the ethical and moral feelings of the Germanic race. The Party as such takes its stand on a positive Christianity but does not tie itself in the matter of confession to any particular denomination. It fights the spirit of Jewish materialism inside and outside ourselves and it is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only come from within and on the basis of the principle that the common good comes before the selfish good.” ( Rhum von Oppen, 25)
Rhum von Oppen, Beate. Religion and Resistance to Nazism. Center of international studies, Princeton University, 1971.
(taken from Churches and Fascism Until WW2 website)
I actually don’t know enough about Stalin and the Russian Purges to really comment. He does appear to be atheists and marxist. Comments online say the man just had pure politics as his agenda, which wasn’t particularly science based, or even atheistic, even though he was atheist.
The webpage Ad Absurdum by “Bjorn and Jeannette, a freethinking couple in Saint Paul, MN” comments upon atheist charity:
“Atheists do give time and money to charity, but how come no one knows about it? I think that atheists are more concerned with helping others then getting recognition for efforts. The side effect of this unselfishness is that efforts of atheists are ignored. Also, atheists don’t tend to organize well. While there are great freethought groups out there, an organization of 300 members can have trouble getting enough volunteers to help with a road side cleanup, but it’s members on their own volunteer at homeless shelters, animal shelters, collect food for food shelves, donate blood, and help sick children. While this helps humanity as a whole, it does nothing to rid the stereotype of atheists as a bunch of intellectual nihilists who have turned their back on humanity.”
A comment on the bottom of the blog questions the motives of christian charity, and also points out money in charitable donations getting lost in the organization of the church. I must confess at this point that I’m not an atheist, but I respect the atheists that I know, they are no stalins or hitlers. They are quite giving and active in doing good in the communities they live in.
Martin, Michael, Gundeck et al,
Not to get lost in semantics but the cessation of the Law of Moses after the ascension of Christ did indeed constitute a major change in the religious practice, policy, and doctrine of the early Christian church from its roots in rabbinical Judaism. This change proved to be a major stumbling block for many Jewish followers of Christ who found it difficult to accept that the Law of Moses was no longer to be practiced. This change was authorized by Christ and implemented by His Prophets and Apostles.
An example of unauthorized change in religious practice, policy and doctrine can be found in modern day Protestantism which rejects major tenets of traditional apostolic Christianity (specifically ordinances, covenants, priesthood authority and ecclesiastical structure). These changes were wrought by fallible men (Martin Luther, John Calvin and other reformers) who lacked any divine authority whatsoever.
Oh, Steve,
I really mean no offense, but you just don’t get it.
I believe it was Martin above who said that the Mosaic laws were not actually done away with. They were fulfilled in Christ.
This is a big difference in understanding.
I think you are correct in stating this as a stumbling block for many Jews, but that is irrelevent to the discussion at hand–whether or not God changes course. These men would have misunderstood the gospel just as you do, so the point you make is meaningless.
The last paragraph shows a huge bias and an inaccurate portrayal of the past. I’ve made this claim to other Mormons– if you wish to crticize us for not getting your faith right (which you have quite strongly), be sure to get ours right, too.
Ralph,
“Maybe capitol punishment for murder is just letting the punishment fit the crime and nothing to do with vengeance/revenge.”
Two men get the death penalty in china for the melamine milk scandal. It ed to the deaths of six babies and made some 300,000 ill. Survivors say that the death penalty is NOT enough. How does one take into account multiple murders, or injuries when a person has only one life to give? At best the death penalty might function to deterrant.
“The only sin that we teach that cannot receive forgiveness for is denying the Holy Ghost ”
This is to say that the church isn’t true?
“There are 2 other sins that are very difficult to gain forgiveness for AFTER one has received a testimony of the truth from the Holy Ghost and they are – (1) Murder and (2) Adultery (not sure about fornication here but it also might fit). All of this is found in the D&C 76:35, Alma 39:5-6. One can obtain forgiveness, but a part of that repentance process is to forfeit one’s life – ie blood atonement.”
Blood atonement for murder only, or does this include adultery as well? In some period of the LDS church did the church practice blood atonement for apostasy? In some cases a father shooting down their own child as they tried to escape? I have heard of such stories.
Gundeck,
“All men know there is a God, simply because of creation, those who deny this are deserving of his wrath. ”
Do you really feel that everyone knows this?
Micheal P,
“If you look at the laws of Moses, they are intended to keep us clean. Christ himself now keeps us clean. There was not a change of course there.”
This was done to create a sort of ‘gentile judaism’, at least that is my understanding.
“…but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews an offence, and to nations foolishness;”
1 corinthians 1:23
Its getting off topic, but its my understanding that christ didn’t fit what the jews were looking for in a messiah, perhaps he was exactly the opposite. To the gentiles christ probably just didn’t make sense because there were ‘other christs’ that they were already familiar with, their understanding was quite different. So this ‘developement’ wasn’t exactly a sooth transition from the traditional jewish faith to this new faith.
Enki,
But your comment on the topic, like Steve’s, ignores a possibility– that these people were wrong. As I agreed with Steve that it caught many off guard, I’ll agree with you that many Jews were in fact looking for an actual ruler in the mold of David. In fact, many still wait such a person. That they missed Christ’s message doesn’t disprove it, or that Christ indeed fills the role of Mosaic law. As to the gentiles, I think it is a common mistake to assume they could not be saved by God. There are examples of non-Jews accepting God as their God in the Bible.
Thus, in the context of a consistent God, both of these examples do not disprove the claim that Christ fills the role of Mosaic law, and that God is indeed consistent and does not change course.
Coming back to the topic at hand, the changing doctrine of Mormonism and the example of blood atonement, no such change can be found within traditional Christianity. I am sure you can find such examples if you wish to nitpick, such as the Reformation, differing views on various topics etc. But each of these are the result of men and how they view God, not a result of God changing his methods.
Martin,
You made a comment about the Law of moses and circumcision. Circumcision was not part of the Mosaic Law, it was part of a covenant that God made with Abram. All male children that were from Abram’s descendants were to be circumcised. The statement God made in the Bible was that it was to be an everlasting covenant including circumcision. Later in the Bible before the Law of Moses, God went to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his son, but is wife did the job and saved is life. In order to be considered a part of God’s people one had to be circumcised, including those who were bought as slaves from Gentile nations. So in the OT BEFORE the Mosaic Law all who were God’s people, both Israelite and Gentile, were to be circumcised and it was supposed to be an EVERLASTING covenant. That is a change made from the OT doctrine to the NT doctrine which was not fulfilled with the Law of Moses. I can find the scripture references if you wish but I used them a few days ago on one of the other threads.
Ralph: is that YOUR view of circimcision, or is that an LDS veiw generally, I am very interested in knowing the answer to that….
Off topic, something I’ve heard before, and always makes me laugh
from a comment by “WILLOH” over at internetmonk:
def. of humility:
THERE IS A GOD,,,AND HE AIN’T YOU
peace and grace to all
except maybe the Denver Broncos and LA Raiders
GERMIT
SteveH said, “This is 2009 not 1850! The LDS Church today has progressed significantly from its origins and does not practice or preach concepts such as Blood Atonement or polygamy in the same manner that the Southern Baptist Convention no longer preaches a defense of the practice of slavery.”
The problem with this statement is that the Mormon Church claims that JS was a prophet from God, as was BY and JFS. The SBC does not make this claim about its leaders. So, the BIG difference is that for a Mormon, today, to say that they no longer believe in the teaching of the founding “prophets” of their Church is to deny the divinity of those prophets. We as evangelical Christians already do that. It’s up to the Mormon to realize that to continue in a religion that has such questionable leaders teaching questionable theology to the point that they have to vehemently refute those teachings as no longer official church doctrine is to continue knowingly in a false religion. The charge that we are “mired in the 1800s” is only an attempt to sweep the heresies of the past under the rug; however, they are not so much swept under the rug as postponed until a later date when all those things the leaders of the LDS Church said will still come to pass. So, in the end, Mormons still believe this but can safely say it’s no longer “official” church doctrine, which is a weak attempt to present themselves as a mainline Christian church. I know, all the Mormons will get on here and tell I don’t know what they belive, how dare I tell them what they believe, and all that rhetoric that is part of this argument. But, they will tell you to your face that polygamy, though practiced, is not official church doctrine, today. What they won’t tell you is that they still believe it will be a part of their version of heaven. So, just because they say something is not official church doctrine does not negate the fact that they believe it in principle. So, I’m waiting for FOF and SteveH to try and discredit what I’ve written here. I realize their hearts aren’t ready to hear the truth, but perhaps there’s someone who’s just curious and has questions that a Mormon will quite frankly try to skirt around, and they’re reading this conversation. I am not ahamed to tell the truth. Oh, I know FOF will jump on that and say it’s MY perception of the truth and all that other stuff he says. I’ve actually grown rather weary of the same tired rhetoric. So, this post is for those wanting to know the truth about what LDS “prophets” have taught that the Church had to change with “newer” revelations because what was taught was and is offensive. If you’re investigating the Mormon Church, remember that succeeding “prophets” generally cancel out what the previous “prophets” said. That’s a whole other thread.
Peace and grace to all seekers of Truth!
Enki,
You ask if I believe that all men know that there is a God because of his creation. Simply I say, yes though men deny God and claim to be wise they have a knowledge of God that cannot be denied. This is attested to in many places in Scripture. David tell us this clearly in Psalm 19. All of the knowledge that we have of God come from his revelation, natural or general revelation serves to convict the creature because we have failed to live up to the commands of our Creator. Paul continues with this teaching in Romans 2:14-15, where he explains that all men have the Law written in their hearts.
Enki,
Thanks for your thoughts on atheists and their charity.
As you probably know, I’m not contending that some (maybe many) atheists live well and do good.
My objection is to the assertion that religion is evil (per Richard Dawkins and Richard Hitchins). The basis for my objection is that the assertion that “religion is evil” does not take into account all of the observed data. I sincerely doubt that the charitable output of Christians would be at anything like the level recorded unless it was for their involvement in their various Churches.
The survey I referred to, by the way, was undertaken for a national newspaper, and I trust that the normal rules of objectivity were applied.
Yes, and we should be concerned about how the money is collected, transmitted and distributed, from inefficiencies in the system to out-and-out fraudsters. However, the people I know are very careful to be accountable in their operations and very circumspect in how they handle the material goods that are entrusted to them.
We could discuss the relationship between religion and Nazism or Communism at length, though its off-topic here. Interestingly, at some point the discussion will reflect on the human condition and in this dialog, its the Biblical view that we (including you, me, Hitler and Stalin) are sinners made in the image of God that, in my opinion, best illuminates the subject.
I think a real problem with comparing polygamy and blood atonement to slavery in the Baptist church is that slavery never had anything to do with the doctrine of salvation. Polygamy/blood atonement do. Polygamy was important in that a person could not reach the CK without it, correct? Blood atonement related to salvation in that if a Mormon committed a particularly heinous crime, only having the person’s blood spilled would save them. In contrast, slavery never had anything to do with a person acheiving salvation. It was never a doctrinal or theological issue. Also, denominations that took part in slavery have publicly repented about their institutional racism. I am specifically thinking about the Southern Baptist Church holding foot washing ceremonies in which leaders of white churches have washed the feet of leaders of historically black denominations. I go to an Episcopal Church that had a slave gallery in its old church building, but they had it removed a couple decades ago as an act of repentance. Has the LDS Church ever publicly repented for polygamy/blood atonement? No. How could they? These two issues are supposed to be direct revelation from JS and BY themselves.
Ralph wrote “…it was supposed to be an EVERLASTING covenant”,
…which, if it were so, would add weight to the “anti-supersessionist” argument.
I’ve heard that there are some Jews who, when confronted with the “New” Testament (a.k.a. covenant), would retort with “What’s wrong with the ‘Old’ one?”. They’ve got a good point.
I submit that Christians need to better align their thinking with the NT. We should not be promoting the idea that “God changed the rules”, but that the story of the Law, Prophets and the People of Israel finds its climax and fulfilment in the person of Jesus, the Christ of God.
The “how” of how this happens is one of the most fruitful and useful aspects of Biblical theology that I can think of. The question of “what happens next” is equally as exciting.
Martin wrote:
I submit that Christians need to better align their thinking with the NT. We should not be promoting the idea that “God changed the rules”, but that the story of the Law, Prophets and the People of Israel finds its climax and fulfilment in the person of Jesus, the Christ of God.
absolutely, and preachers are either too lazy, inexperienced, or “topical crazy” to adequately tackle the issue: the Old Covenant was God’s idea, it didn’t fail in any way, it served its purpose…..lets hear more preaching that joins the two correctly, not a trashing of the old.
well said, Martin
GERMIT
my name is ashley and i am 15 years old. i am a member of the church of jesus Christ of latter day saints(aka mormon) and have been all of my life. i have not once heard of anything like blood atonement. it is NOT something we preach. now im not a great historian or anything i could not give you an amazing argument and im sure you could come up with things i could not explain. but i do know this, i have been taught all my life (and i know it is true) that christ sacrificed himself and paid for all our sins. because of this if we humble our selves and repent whenever we happen to transgress we will be able to stand spotless before god at the day of judgment.sometimes this can be really hard, it may take a whole lifetime to repent, but no matter what god is always willing and wanting to forgive if we take the right steps to obtain it. we are also taught that there is only one sin that cannot be forgiven and that is if you have a perfect knowledge, and i mean you know everything that god knows basically, and then outright and blatantly deny it. finally something that is greatly stressed in our religion is how sacred life is. we have been given a gif. it is the greatest honor to be able to come to this earth to live and learn. to throw it away is simply… i don’t know, i can’t think of a word to describe how horrible it is. the idea that we are taught even encouraged to kill ourselves simply because we have sinned is atrocious!! we are here on earth to live and learn and become more like god. how can we do this if we bail out when it gets rough? no matter what we have done it is possible to be forgiven and still return to our heavenly father with flying colors.
Megan,
There is a manifesto and official declaration by Wilford Woodruff issued in Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890. Its very carefully stated that the LDS church has discontinued preaching or practicing plural marriages. Its not entirely clear to me if there is any statement of wrong doing,but its agreed that the LDS church will abide by the law. Its entirely up to you if this qualifies as public repentance.
Doing a little search, I am finding a conflicting story concerning Blood atonement. From religious tolerance.org, “Blood Atonement” in the LDS Church
and elsewhere in LDS Restorationism:
“Recent status of the blood atonement:
Bruce R. McConike, one of the foremost experts in the LDS Church, has written that there are no references to blood atonement in the history of the that church. References that do exist are only false and slanderous stories made up by enemies of the various Mormon denominations by extracting a sentence here and there from Mormon leaders’ writings and stringing them together to make a convincing story that blood atonement was real. This accusation is why we quoted at length from various sources 4
McConike did state in his book:
“President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: ‘Man may commit certain grievous sins — according to his light and knowledge– that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone — so far as in his power lies– for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail’.”
“Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, so far as possible, in their behalf.”
“This doctrine can only be practiced in its fullness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands.” 5
Thus, the blood atonement doctrine could presumably have been implemented during Brigham Young’s era when he was both the head of the government and head of the Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) denounced the teaching of blood atonement in 1978. 4 However, it is taught by other denominations within the Mormon movement. ”
I think this is about as close to a public acknowledgement that this teaching or practice even existed. I really doubt that the LDS church has or will issue an official declaration concerning it, to do so would admit that it was practiced at one point. It appears that the official record is that it didn’t exist.
Ashley,
Thank you for your thoughts. It sounds like you have a good heart and take your faith seriously. This is a good thing. Toward the end of your comment you say this:
‘i don’t know, i can’t think of a word to describe how horrible it is. the idea that we are taught even encouraged to kill ourselves simply because we have sinned is atrocious!! we are here on earth to live and learn and become more like god. how can we do this if we bail out when it gets rough? no matter what we have done it is possible to be forgiven and still return to our heavenly father with flying colors.”
What do you say to the idea that your previous leaders and even founders taught exactly that? How does that make you feel?
You say that blood atonement is not taught, but rather you are taught to strive to become like God in all you do. This is what is taught now, but why do you think the church has moved away from such ‘atrocious’ teachings? Is it because of revelation, or simply because the teaching was, well, atrocious?
As you consider this specific claim, consider other doctrines that your church once held dear, like polygamy. How would you feel to share your husband with another? Or what about its attitudes towards blacks? Do you think it is right to deny them full access to godhood because of the color of their skin? The church has given reasons– revelation– for the denial of these tenants, but is your first reaction on hearing these things something along your reaction to blood atonement?
I ask that you consider these topics with an open heart, and let God open the eyes of your heart.
Martin,
The answer to your question “What happens next?” is easy. We have the Old Testament, the New Testament and now we have Another Testament. So the answer is the LDS church !!! 🙂
Easy wasn’t it?
Enki,
So Bruce McConike is the LDS historical expert and he refers to Joseph Fielding Smith confirming blood atonement teachings by Joseph Smith. Yet “It appears that the official record is that it didn’t exist.”
So those early teachings just disappeared, according to McConike, whose obvious agenda is to protect and defend LDS. So you let man after man after man spoon feed you information and you take it as gospel truth.
No one is ever wrong? No one is ever lying to protect their interest?