10 facts

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Those who are interested in what we believe regarding the atonement can find it in Mormon sources. We believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind by the shedding of His blood. In so doing, we shall all overcome death and meet God. Those who accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Savior will be "crowned with glory" in the next life.

If anyone wants to see the argument regarding the term "blood atonement" they can go to such places as FAIR. While there are some who claim to mean that those who left the church would pay for it with their lives, there is no evidence for this. And as I come from pioneer stock, there is no history of it in any of my family, nor mention of it (and I have those who did what they pleased )

You asked if we thought that the messages of your leaders were in line with your scriptures and I said "no". You then said that we didn't understand. So I gave you a single example and asked you to show us how blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young was consistent with the lds scriptures. Why direct us to FAIR when I asked you--not them. Can you show us the entire "elephant" based on your vast experience and knowledge of Mormonism how this fits in with the overall lds doctrine?

[Libby]

Is "blood atonement" a doctrine of the church? It was my understanding, as LDS, that it was not.

But, I'm not sure....just asking.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Is "blood atonement" a doctrine of the church? It was my understanding, as LDS, that it was not.

But, I'm not sure....just asking.

No, it is not.

This is basically one line that some critic picked up and has sensationalized. (As is with most things.)

[Libby]

Thanks, Julie. I was fairly sure it wasn't.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Libby

Thanks, Julie. I was fairly sure it wasn't.

You know very well that Brigham Young taught that there were some sins for which the Blood of Christ will not atone and a person had to shed their own blood for that sin; when Mark Hofmann admitted to ****ing up two Mormons in his quest to cover up his forgeries, his own father said he should be willing to have his blood shed in atonement. It might not be "officially" taught, but it is believed nevertheless.

So, have you left Yoganandaism yet?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Apologette

You know very well that Brigham Young taught that there were some sins for which the Blood of Christ will not atone and a person had to shed their own blood for that sin; when Mark Hofmann admitted to ****ing up two Mormons in his quest to cover up his forgeries, his own father said he should be willing to have his blood shed in atonement. It might not be "officially" taught, but it is believed nevertheless.

So, have you left Yoganandaism yet?

This is the part of LDSinc. Smoke screen I detest. Every TBM who is deep into the weeds of LDSinc. doctrine and teaching, and I underline, deep, knows what is meant by blood atonement for some sins that Brigham Young taught.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

This is the part of LDSinc. Smoke screen I detest. Every TBM who is deep into the weeds of LDSinc. doctrine and teaching, and I underline, deep, knows what is meant by blood atonement for some sins that Brigham Young taught.

And didn't he teach those things over the pulpit as the prophet of God? Did he not say that after he has checked them to make sure he was correctly quoted that they were scripture? Of course he did.. Wasn't the church taught daily in it's temples before 1991 that we would allow our bowels to be opened and our blood split if we spoke about the keys and signs given in the temple? YES!! And still they want to deny this as a doctrine that the church held. They have never accepted responsibility for their false doctrines, they just stop talking about them and hope they go away.. Tell a newly temple married woman that the anointing she had in the temple used to be far more than oil on her head, that they touched the whole body, and you will be called a liar.. Just as today when we say that Young taught that Adam was our Father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do. We are liars for saying such things.. Ok it's in their own books but we (dissenters) are the only ones that seem to be able to find it.. The same goes with blood atonement.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Apologette

You know very well that Brigham Young taught that there were some sins for which the Blood of Christ will not atone and a person had to shed their own blood for that sin; when Mark Hofmann admitted to ****ing up two Mormons in his quest to cover up his forgeries, his own father said he should be willing to have his blood shed in atonement. It might not be "officially" taught, but it is believed nevertheless.

So, have you left Yoganandaism yet?

Of course, I know that. But, it is not church doctrine and never has been, as far as I know. I never even heard of it, until I started talking to critics of Mormonism.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Libby

Of course, I know that. But, it is not church doctrine and never has been, as far as I know. I never even heard of it, until I started talking to critics of Mormonism.

Of course you have never heard of it, you never got to the meat of mormonism. There are a lot of things strange to mormons that they don't know, just like this one, (spiritual sealings.)

[Libby]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Of course you have never heard of it, you never got to the meat of mormonism. There are a lot of things strange to mormons that they don't know, just like this one, (spiritual sealings.)

I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Libby

I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine.

Libby, when were you a temple worker? Was it after 1990? If so I can see how you never heard about "blood atonement". But here in Utah it is still a part of the church since a criminal given the death penalty is given a choice of how they wish to die. Two choices, to be shot; which would allow their blood to be split or lethal injection. Have you ever heard of the Danites? I asked Julie this question but she either didn't see it or I am being ignored or maybe she has chosen to go away for awhile as she's done in the past.

[Libby]

Neverending, my Temple service was after 1990. There is nothing about blood atonement in the Temple, at this time.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Libby

Neverending, my Temple service was after 1990. There is nothing about blood atonement in the Temple, at this time.

That's what I thought. You were never exposed to the real temple ceremony and ALL it's signs and penalties. Sorry Libby but you can't really discuss the temple when you have been given the watered down version. No, blood oaths, no secret hand shakes, no slitting your throat, or pretending to disembowel yourself. These are what most of us who were once Mormons and went through the temple before 1990 were forced to do. My question still remains, if the temple is such an important part of Mormonism and not one Mormon will gain their exaltation without it, why the drastic changes without a revelation. From what I know, JS was told to NEVER alter or change the ceremony, it was God ordained.

[Libby]

Yes, I'm aware of the changes in the Temple. There have been some recent changes, as well, having to do with the initiatories.

I'm not defending the Temple or blood atonement or any of that.

My comment had to do with official doctrine. If it's not official doctrine, it's easy to dismiss as just someone trying to stir the pot. I think that happens often, with these discussions.

If I were still LDS, I wouldn't give the time of day to someone who was digging up dirt from church history. What really grabbed my attention, in the beginning, was a Calvinist who knew his Bible and made wonderful arguments against LDS doctrine as being Biblical.

Everyone is different, I guess, but I just don't think these sensationalistic arguments over blood atonement and Danites mean anything to most LDS.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Libby

I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine.

Libby, are you making excuses now for the LDSinc,? In saying you got the meat, did you ever get the t-bone part of the cow? what I mean is the part where LDSinc. TBM temple recommend male members would seal women who are not their wive's into what is called a (spiritual marriage?)

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Libby

Of course, I know that. But, it is not church doctrine and never has been, as far as I know. I never even heard of it, until I started talking to critics of Mormonism.

You had never heard of the doctrine of "Blood Atonement"? This is another reason you should rethink posting here.. You just don't know the subject.. here is a teaching of Joseph Feilding Smith on that doctrine:

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. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. I, p. 135-136).

If you don't know this what else don't you know I wonder? IHS jim

[Libby]

Originally Posted by James Banta

You had never heard of the doctrine of "Blood Atonement"? This is another reason you should rethink posting here.. You just don't know the subject.. here is a teaching of Joseph Feilding Smith on that doctrine:

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. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. I, p. 135-136).

If you don't know this what else don't you know I wonder? IHS jim

James, once again, you are misconstruing what I said. This is really a very bad habit of yours. You do not read carefully enough, and this has been a complaint from almost everyone on this board. Please slow down and READ CAREFULLY, before you respond!

Of course, I know about Brigham Young's "blood atonement" and I know who the Danites were, and I said as much, if you had just read my posts! Just because I said it's not church doctrine (which is TRUE...it is not) doesn't mean I don't know about it.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Libby

James, once again, you are misconstruing what I said. This is really a very bad habit of yours. You do not read carefully enough, and this has been a complaint from almost everyone on this board. Please slow down and READ CAREFULLY, before you respond!

Of course, I know about Brigham Young's "blood atonement" and I know who the Danites were, and I said as much, if you had just read my posts! Just because I said it's not church doctrine (which is TRUE...it is not) doesn't mean I don't know about it.

You said "I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine. "

Just what is doctrine if it isn't what the prophet, seer, and revelator of the church teaches. What is doctrine if it isn't the highest form of worship in mormonism, the temple ceremony? It was therefore taught in the church AS DOCTRINE until 1991.. Oh and your Danite comment to me.. I never brought up the Danites in this thread, NOT EVEN ONCE.. Maybe it is you that isn't reading before you post.. maybe you should slow down a bit.. I would like to see you slow down until you never posted to this channel again..

As for not caring about these terrible EVIL doctrines of mormonism, these doctrines need to be remembered and brought to the attention of the world in order to put a stop to the incessantly evil church from spreading.. I was working one afternoon near temple Square and happened alone a black couple that was in awe of the beauty and message of mormonism. I opened my triple combination and showed them 2 Nephi 5 and Abraham 4. They were shocked at just how evil mormonism IS in it's scriptural teaching that a dark skin is a sign of evil.. We then discussed Acts 8 and saw how much God loves all men in choosing the Ethiopian Eunuch to be the first non-Jew to be brought into the church and that by miraculous means.. The beauty of the buildings, the water features, and the gardens that are temple square hide a church filled with corruption and dead men's bones.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, it is not.

This is basically one line that some critic picked up and has sensationalized. (As is with most things.)

Firing squad anyone?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You asked if we thought that the messages of your leaders were in line with your scriptures and I said "no". You then said that we didn't understand. So I gave you a single example and asked you to show us how blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young was consistent with the lds scriptures. Why direct us to FAIR when I asked you--not them. Can you show us the entire "elephant" based on your vast experience and knowledge of Mormonism how this fits in with the overall lds doctrine?

The elephant is that this is not our doctrine. It hasn't been and isn't. I direct to FAIR because this has already been discussed ad nauseam. This is an old critique already addressed.

You ***ume this was "taught by Brigham Young" as you understand it. You are wrong. Here is a release by the church:

The Deseret News reported the following on June 17, 2010, reporting the Church's recent statement on the subject of Blood Atonement:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday: In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making res***ution for their sins by giving up their own lives. However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encomp***ing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

This is pretty straight forward. In other words, you think there is a contradiction, when there is none because you misunderstood the original. As noted, there is no evidence that your understanding was ever correct.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The elephant is that this is not our doctrine. It hasn't been and isn't. I direct to FAIR because this has already been discussed ad nauseam. This is an old critique already addressed.

You ***ume this was "taught by Brigham Young" as you understand it. You are wrong. Here is a release by the church:

I don't ***ume that this was taught by Brigham Young--I KNOW that it was taught by Brigham Young. Blood atonement as taught by BY is a completely false doctrine and the lds church can in no way defend this doctrine by one of it's own prophets, so they must distance themselves from it by any means possibly which is evident by your quote. So how is it possible that a living prophet of god could be so wrong? Doesn't this at least bring up some red flags for you and ponder if it is even remotely possibly that he was not a true prophet of god but rather one of the many anticipated false prophets that would rear their ugly head before the second coming of Christ?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I don't ***ume that this was taught by Brigham Young--I KNOW that it was taught by Brigham Young. Blood atonement as taught by BY is a completely false doctrine and the lds church can in no way defend this doctrine by one of it's own prophets, so they must distance themselves from it by any means possibly which is evident by your quote. So how is it possible that a living prophet of god could be so wrong? Doesn't this at least bring up some red flags for you and ponder if it is even remotely possibly that he was not a true prophet of god but rather one of the many anticipated false prophets that would rear their ugly head before the second coming of Christ?

Okay, you know more than us Mormons and our leaders and our historians. I give. I didn't realize--you are as God and know all.

(btw, I love how you state you know what is and what is not and our church does not and therefore, I must some how answer your conclusions about it. Oh brother.)

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Okay, you know more than us Mormons and our leaders and our historians. I give. I didn't realize--you are God and know all.

I know exactly what you know but you are attempting to downplay and disregard it OR you are simply ignorant of what one of your own prophets has taught--I suspect the former. If you would like we can delve into this more and look at some of the quotes. We could hash it out on this thread and show you all of the quotes but the bottom line is that you and I both know that this was a false doctrine promoted by one of your so-called prophets of god--if you know what is best for you and your family you should ponder long and hard about this because if he was a false prophet then you will be in bad shape when it comes time for judgement day.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I know exactly what you know but you are attempting to downplay and disregard it OR you are simply ignorant of what one of your own prophets has taught--I suspect the former.

Yes, you see yourself as God. I get that. I am beginning to see that is the problem with all of our conversations here Billyray. How can you reason with someone who already knows everything and even what others believe or think.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, you see yourself as God. I get that.

No BigJ I don't see myself as God.

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I am beginning to see that is the problem with all of our conversations here Billyray. How can you reason with someone who already knows everything and even what others believe or think.

Until you are honest with yourself you are never going to see all of the problems with mormonism that all of the Christians posters are trying to show you. As I said above blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young is indefensible--that is why you don't want to talk about it. BigJ you should do some serious soul searching and ask yourself if a true prophet of god who speaks directly with god would teach this false doctrine.