Blood Atonement

Snow · August 2, 2004

So what was the theory of Blood Atonement - that you had to shed your own blood for certain crimes/sins - like murder?

You think Brigham Young was tough? Virginia prescribed the death penalty for anyone who "shall speake any word, or do any act, which may tend to the derision... of God's holy word." (see Dale's Law)

You could be whacked, rubbed out, popped, terminated with extreme punishmenst just for "tending" to deride the Bible.

August 2, 2004

"Theory"? It was a doctrine preached from the pulpit by the head honcho of the church for decades. I certainly wouldn't call that a theory.

So when was this a law in Virginia, anyways? Is the law still on the books?

Snow · August 2, 2004

You misinterpreted the use of the word theory. I didn't that it was a theory that it was preached (although it didn't necessarily mean what you think it meant) but rather what was the reason for it.

The Virgnia law was back in the days of the Bible Commonwealths - puritans.

August 2, 2004

You misinterpreted the use of the word theory. I didn't that it was a theory that it was preached (although it didn't necessarily mean what you think it meant) but rather what was the reason for it.

I think I know what you are saying, but could you please reread and edit your post so that I can respond to what you mean, instead of what I interpret it to probably mean? I'm not trying to be rude, I just need clarification before I respond. Thanks. :)

The Virgnia law was back in the days of the Bible Commonwealths - puritans.

I'm not really familiar with the Puritans. I should read up on them one of these days.

I don't know why, but this thread reminded me of the movie, Gangs of New York. It's got a famous actor in it or something. Maybe it was Leo DiCaprio (sp?). That movie really bothered me. Even more so, when I learned that it was really based on actual events. I should watch that movie again. That's all we need around here; a disturbed bat.

Snow · August 2, 2004

It also had Daniel Day Lewis, one of my favorites from Last of the Mohicans, My Left Foot and The Unbearable Lightness of Being, though I haven't seen Gangs of New York.

I don't know what you want me to edit. It reads the way I intened it to read.

August 2, 2004

Originally posted by Snow@Aug 1 2004, 09:58 PM
It also had Daniel Day Lewis, one of my favorites from Last of the Mohicans, My Left Foot and The Unbearable Lightness of Being, though I haven't seen Gangs of New York.
I don't know what you want me to edit. It reads the way I intened it to read.

It also had Daniel Day Lewis, one of my favorites from Last of the Mohicans, My Left Foot and The Unbearable Lightness of Being, though I haven't seen Gangs of New York.

You might not like it. It was one of the most graphic and violent movies that I have ever seen. It had a very personal feeling to the violence. I don't know how to explain it.

I don't know what you want me to edit. It reads the way I intened it to read.

I hope not. Maybe I need to relearn English.

I didn't______________ that it was a theory that it was preached

Didn't know, didn't say, didn't imply, didn't care...............

Snow · August 2, 2004

Oh, that sentence. I didn't mean that it was just a theory - that it may have been preached... but rather I was commenting of the theory or purpose behind the belief of blood atonement.

August 2, 2004

Originally posted by Snow@Aug 1 2004, 10:17 PM
Oh, that sentence. I didn't mean that it was just a theory - that it may have been preached... but rather I was commenting of the theory or purpose behind the belief of blood atonement.

Okay, that's what I thought you meant.

We all know that blood atonement was preached. However, it doesn't have any scriptural basis as far as I know.

The fact that it was indeed taught from the pulpit means that it *was* at one point doctrine.

"Blood Atonement" is no longer preached from the pulpit, nor is it espoused as an official church doctrine.

Therefore, the "theory" part comes into play, when trying to discern the source of this teaching, not whether or not it was actually ever taught, or if it is currently taught.

I'm on the right track so far, yes?

So, the (rhetorical at this point) question is: Was Brigham Young's doctrine of Blood Atonement purely a fabrication of his own mind, or did G-d actually reveal this as a divine mandate?

If I was a Fundamentalist Mormon, I would probably believe that G-d revealed this to BY.

If I was a Chapel Mormon, I would throw my arms up in the air and say "I don't know! The Lord reveals things in mysterious ways!"

If I was an Internet Mormon, I would look to Jeff Lindsay's website to find out what my opinion is.

My guess is that Jeff Lindsay says that a prophet is only a prophet when he/she is speaking as such. I don't like that argument. It's like saying that a dog is only a dog when it barks. Try kicking a dog and see if it is still a dog.

If I was GBH, I would say "I don't know if we teach that. Brigham Young said that if the force be with you, then ye be muy blessed. It's a very deep theological question that we don't know very much about, even though I am a prophet, but that's only because people tell me that I am."

So is the Blood Atonement doctrine derived from God, or from a human? Unless G-d reveals to me that it is a divine commandment, I surmise that it is nothing more than a personal belief of Brigham Young, just as I believe the Proclamation of the Family or whatever that is called, to be nothing more than the personal beliefs of some members of the FP, and therefore, either both are credible, or neither are.

This opens the "Can the prophet lead the church astray" door.

I don't see how any faithful mormon can believe that the church cannot be led astray if it is lead by fallible leaders that speak from their own personal opinions from the pulpit in SLC, and not from the word of G-d.

If G-d really said it, wouldn't it be important enough to be canonized?

Snow · August 3, 2004

Originally posted by bat@Aug 1 2004, 10:58 PM

I'm on the right track so far, yes?

No,

That was not the track I was on. I simply alluded to what the supposed rationale behind the belief of blood atonement was because I didn't want to get into a discussion of whether or not it was an inspired belief or whether or not the belief really was as the critics or the apologetist argue it was.

Beyond that, I find that the "led astray" arguement to not be particularly relevant. Regardless of what Brigham Young taught or didn't teach about it, I don't think that we are astray. It is a non-issue, most notable for little more than the interest it generates in internet message board debates.

August 3, 2004

That was not the track I was on. I simply alluded to what the supposed rationale behind the belief of blood atonement was because I didn't want to get into a discussion of whether or not it was an inspired belief or whether or not the belief really was as the critics or the apologetist argue it was.

Perhaps the rationale was "Do what I (Brigham Young) say, or we'll slit your throat open!" I think it was an obedience (scare tactic) more than anything.

Beyond that, I find that the "led astray" arguement to not be particularly relevant. Regardless of what Brigham Young taught or didn't teach about it, I don't think that we are astray. It is a non-issue, most notable for little more than the interest it generates in internet message board debates.

Ummmm........okay. :)

Snow · August 3, 2004

Originally posted by bat@Aug 2 2004, 07:19 PM

Perhaps the rationale was "Do what I (Brigham Young) say, or we'll slit your throat open!" I think it was an obedience (scare tactic) more than anything.

See, this is the kind of thing I was hoping to avoid.

Was any part of the idea of blood atonement that those who failed to do what Brigham Yound said would have to pay for it by the shedding of blood? Was there ever a case of someone paying such a penalty for having failed to follow BY?

You needed answer, it's rhetorical.

August 3, 2004

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 2 2004, 07:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 2 2004, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Aug 2 2004, 07:19 PM

Perhaps the rationale was "Do what I (Brigham Young) say, or we'll slit your throat open!" I think it was an obedience (scare tactic) more than anything.

See, this is the kind of thing I was hoping to avoid.

Was any part of the idea of blood atonement that those who failed to do what Brigham Yound said would have to pay for it by the shedding of blood? Was there ever a case of someone paying such a penalty for having failed to follow BY?

You needed answer, it's rhetorical.

Actually, yes. Would you like to discuss it?

Jenda · August 3, 2004

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 2 2004, 07:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 2 2004, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Aug 2 2004, 07:19 PM

Perhaps the rationale was "Do what I (Brigham Young) say, or we'll slit your throat open!" I think it was an obedience (scare tactic) more than anything.

See, this is the kind of thing I was hoping to avoid.

Was any part of the idea of blood atonement that those who failed to do what Brigham Yound said would have to pay for it by the shedding of blood? Was there ever a case of someone paying such a penalty for having failed to follow BY?

Yes. I have read many testimonies of those who left Utah and barely escaped the Avenging Angels. Incorporated in those testimonies are testimonies of those who didn't.

August 3, 2004

Originally posted by bat+Aug 2 2004, 08:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Aug 2 2004, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Snow@Aug 2 2004, 07:40 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Aug 2 2004, 07:19 PM

Perhaps the rationale was "Do what I (Brigham Young) say, or we'll slit your throat open!" I think it was an obedience (scare tactic) more than anything.

See, this is the kind of thing I was hoping to avoid.
Was any part of the idea of blood atonement that those who failed to do what Brigham Yound said would have to pay for it by the shedding of blood? Was there ever a case of someone paying such a penalty for having failed to follow BY?
You needed answer, it's rhetorical.

Actually, yes. Would you like to discuss it?

I'm not sure if it will be allowed to make a case for Brigham Young's responsibility for the deaths of mormons due to his Blood Atonement doctrine. Will I be banned or punished if I do?

August 3, 2004

Originally posted by bat@Aug 1 2004, 07:18 PM
"Theory"? It was a doctrine preached from the pulpit by the head honcho of the church for decades. I certainly wouldn't call that a theory.
So when was this a law in Virginia, anyways? Is the law still on the books?

This is truly an example of [the author's] excusing one type of atrocity by comparing it to something even more heinous!

Or, in other words, one hick from American Fark saying to another,

"Your hogs' poop smells worse'n my hogs' poop"

August 3, 2004

Originally posted by bat+Aug 1 2004, 11:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Aug 1 2004, 11:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Aug 1 2004, 10:17 PM
Oh, that sentence. I didn't mean that it was just a theory - that it may have been preached... but rather I was commenting of the theory or purpose behind the belief of blood atonement.