|
if the mormon church teaches blood atonement was never a doctrine then the
mormon church is not being truthful to its people and therefore cannot be the
true church it claims to be.
in the 1958 mormon doctrine (i just happen to own), page 314 under HANGING
bruce m says, "as a mode of capital punishment, hanging or execution on a gallows
does not comply with the LAW OF BLOOD ATONEMENT FOR THE BLOOD IS NOT SHED." this
has been removed from the newer version.
under BLOOD ATONEMENT bruce m says it is a false teaching with in the church,
yet he goes on to say "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 have there own blood shed to ATONE FOR THEIR SINS." bruce goes on later to say,
"this doctrine can only be practiced in its fulness in a day when the civil and
ecclesiastical laws are administered."
regardless of how it can be practiced, it is still understood that it *can*
be practiced after saying it was never taught. it is also taught in: the jod
volumes 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10; history of the church vol 7; doctrines of salvation.
blood atonement is taught in too many mormon books to be mere opinion. i own all
that i've listed and read all to insure no misunderstanding. some mormons say,
"we don't use the jod," then why are all 26 volumes quoted under "books cited"
in gospel principles? and why is the king follet discourse said to be j smith's
greatest teaching if it is from a book mormons don't use? for further talks write
me at "[email protected]" -RB (non-LDS)
The Mormon Church has a history of changing their own doctrines to suit
the needs of the times and then presenting the present doctrines as if they
were the only ones they ever held. This can be seen in many examples, too
many to list here. But there are old documents that can be found if one
searches hard and long enough to prove that the doctrine of blood atonement
was believed and taught AS a doctrine. -BJS (non-LDS)
The question is invalidated by its condition: blood atonement was practiced
as a doctrine by the LDS Church. -ABM (non-LDS)
In my opinion, the statement that Blood Atonement was never a doctrine of
the LDS church is historically false.
Brigham Young said, "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... 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).
Joeseph Fielding Smith said, "...the founders of Utah incorporated in
the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those
who willfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now
the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege
of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he BE SHOT,
AND THUS HAVE HIS BLOOD SHED IN HARMONY WITH THE LAW OF GOD; AND THUS ATONE,
so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim..."
(Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Vol. 1, p. 136).
Also see - (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 5, p. 296)
"Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints
with it, and see if it will stand the test." -- President Brigham Young,
Discourses of Brigham Young (p.126). -MC (non-LDS)
Blood atonement never was a doctrine of the church. In order to become
binding doctrine on the church, something must be received by common
consent (D&C 28:13).
I have never heard the term "blood atonement" mentioned in church.
The first time I heard it was on my mission when a kind minister of
another faith politely informed me that it was a major tenet of my religion.
I think this thing is something the media jumped on and blew out of
proportion because it was made an interesting story. -AH (LDS)
Mormon doctrine teaches that some sins could only be atoned by
the shedding of the sinners own blood. Joseph Smith taught this
very thing, "...If these offenses are commited, then the blood of
Christ will not cleanse them form their sins even though they repent.
Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone..."
(Doctirnes of Salvation by Joseph F. Smith Vol. 1. P. 135) Even the
book of Mormon teaches that nothing except the blood of Christ will be
sufficient for the sins of the world. (See Alma 34:10-12; Doctrine
and Covenants 76:41; and 2 Nephi 9:7) The true norm and source of
Christian doctrine, which is holy scripture, clearly says that the
blood atonement necessary for salvation is the blood of God incarnate
(Jesus Christ) who atoned for the sins of the world. This is the
primary teaching of scripture. This is justification by Christ and
the true teaching on which the church stands and falls. (1 John 1:7-10;
Romans 5:8-9) 1 Peter 1:18-20: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain
conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without
spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,
but was manifest in these last times for you" -SVM (non-LDS)
|
