Blood Atonement

[Nina]

First let me just admit upfront that I have not read this ENTIRE thread in detail because ... well ... it is just too lengthy and I jumped in rather late so if I am asking something that has already been established I do apoligize.

Having said that I would still really appreciate and answer if someone wouldn't mind.

huma 17< "BLOOD ATONEMENT WAS NOT TAUGHT AS A DOCTRINE TO BE PRACTICED BY ANY MODERN DAY PROPHET. It was spoken of as a means to get points across."

It is my understanding that blood atonement was practiced by people in the LDS church early in their (our) history. My questions are as follows:

1)Did "Mormons" actually practice blood atonement? I think yes but this quote makes me question ...

2)If they did practice blood atonement did they do this at the time of BYoung?

3) If so, did BYoung ever speak to the saints about this misunderstanding and that they should NOT practice blood atonement only consider it's spiritual implications and applications?

4)If this did not occur during BYoung's lifetime (occuring later after his death) did any other prophet speak against the actual practice of Blood Atonement to their people who might have misunderstood?

Thanks for any replies and again I apologize for jumping in so late with material that may have been covered.

[huma17]

Hence unforgiveable because you wouldn't be 'forgiven' for not accepting the greater light and knowledge of the HG. Forgiven meaning to not receive the rewards of Everlasting Life, just as those who are punished do not receive it.

I felt that I stated my thoughts clearly. As you can see, I said would NOT be forgiven preceding the sentence you are questioning. I do not know why you feel the need to nitpick?

As regards to receiving a greater light and knowledge, it does not only come from the Holy Ghost. Moses received a greater light and knowledge on Mt. Sinai from the Lord himself. Peter, James, and John received the keys of the kindom from Elias and Moses (a greater light and knowledge) with Christ. Christ asked Peter who he was, and when Peter said the Christ, Jesus said the Father had made it known. The Holy Ghost had not yet been given, evident by Christs' own words. Numerous accounts are made regarding Jesus giving people a knowledge of things. Some knew by his miracles, and others such as Lazarus and Paul received personal witnesses. Lazarus saw Abraham's glory for himself, while Paul saw an Angel.

Also, Jesus said the HG would be sent to reveal truth and bring a rememberance of what Christ had made known.

You continue to say things that are correct, but using them to prove an incorrect point: Not knowing something (from the HG) is unforgiveable. Like I pointed out earlier, once they knew and accepted it, they would receive forgiveness (by your thinking). Hence it would NOT be UNFORGIVEABLE.

[huma17]

Nina-

If anyone practiced blood atonement, it was not under the direction of the prophet. Just as some RLDS continue polygamy today, it is out of their own beliefs and understandings. People think early saints practiced blood atonement due to not understanding statements regarding an old doctrine (practiced under the Mosaic Law) that Brigham Young made, and also to some books written by excommunicated persons.

Like I said, it has never been church doctrine taught to be practiced. I'm sure people practiced it while calling themselves 'Mormon'. If they had done so, they would have been exed - if they were indeed members. Even some early leaders didn't understand it and had to be rebuked for thinking it was doctrine being taught. People today use that to say leaders didn't agree with the doctrine of blood atonement, so they were exed.

Don't be confused by what others say, because they are looking for reasons to disagree with the 'church'.

[Maureen]

Nina, these JD quotes might help.

In reading the quotes below, I can’t see how anyone could deny that BY was serious regarding the belief and practice of blood atonement.

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.

I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine, but you do not understand it. (JD 4: [51-57])

http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/V...fJDvol4-10.html

…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 overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which 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 what would say, "shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?"…

I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up-conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind. (JD 4: [215-220])

http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/V...fJDvol4-42.html

IMO, it appears that BY could not let go of the Law of Moses and couldn’t accept that Christ’s atonement fulfilled that law and indeed had the power to atone for all sins.

Huma, even McConkie agrees that blood atonement can be practiced (in this case) in the 20th century. I believe though that Utah has changed the means in which a criminal can be put to death. I don’t believe the firing squad is an option anymore.

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. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment. (Mormon Doctrine, “Blood Atonement” Bruce R. McConkie, page 92)

M.

[Ray]

Hence unforgiveable because you wouldn't be 'forgiven' for not accepting the greater light and knowledge of the HG. Forgiven meaning to not receive the rewards of Everlasting Life, just as those who are punished do not receive it.

I felt that I stated my thoughts clearly. As you can see, I said would NOT be forgiven preceding the sentence you are questioning.

I do not know why you feel the need to nitpick?

Why do you refer to it as “nitpicking”? Why can’t you see it as an opportunity to share the truth with someone? Why is your perception so negative?

I’m simply trying to come to an agreement with you as much as I can without compromising my knowledge and integrity. If you have something to share that can further enlighten my understanding, just share it and keep trying to share it until I simply say that I don’t agree with you. Until that time, there is always the hope that we will come to an agreement.

Btw, I still do not understand what you meant, and simply repeating your previous comments didn’t do anything to further enlighten me.

As regards to receiving a greater light and knowledge, it does not only come from the Holy Ghost. Moses received a greater light and knowledge on Mt. Sinai from the Lord himself. Peter, James, and John received the keys of the kingdom from Elias and Moses (a greater light and knowledge) with Christ. Christ asked Peter who he was, and when Peter said the Christ, Jesus said the Father had made it known. The Holy Ghost had not yet been given, evident by Christs' own words. Numerous accounts are made regarding Jesus giving people a knowledge of things. Some knew by his miracles, and others such as Lazarus and Paul received personal witnesses. Lazarus saw Abraham's glory for himself, while Paul saw an Angel.

I believe the Holy Ghost was present during all of those situations you have mentioned, and that without the power of Faith, which is an assurance from the Holy Ghost that certain things are true, there would have been no way for those men to know the truth.

Moses would not have received a greater light and knowledge on Mt. Sinai unless he had been transfigured by the power of the Holy Ghost. The same thing can be said of Peter, James and John. When the Father revealed who Jesus was to Peter, I believe He did it through the witness and power of the Holy Ghost. While the gift of the Holy Ghost had not yet been given to those people Jesus was talking with, the Holy Ghost had been enlightening the minds of men since the days of Adam. The only people who knew the truth about Jesus were the people who had been given Faith, and the people who didn’t know who He was were the ones who didn’t have Faith. Miracles alone didn’t convince anybody of anything, and without Faith they would not have known what caused those things to happen.

Also, Jesus said the HG would be sent to reveal truth and bring a remembrance of what Christ had made known.

Yes, and without that testimony from the Holy Ghost they would not have known the truth concerning what He had revealed.

You continue to say things that are correct, but using them to prove an incorrect point: Not knowing something (from the HG) is unforgivable. Like I pointed out earlier, once they knew and accepted it, they would receive forgiveness (by your thinking). Hence it would NOT be UNFORGIVEABLE.

Perhaps we do disagree on one point, because I believe that Jesus has the power to save everybody who comes to know the truth and repents from their sins. To me, that’s what Faith and Repentance is all about.

The only people who Jesus cannot save are those who have either once received light and knowledge and then completely denied it or never received light and knowledge because they would not receive the testimony from the Holy Ghost. The former won't be saved at all, while the latter will receive a certain degree salvation insofar as they would receive light and knowledge.

Got it? On one extreme there are people like Lucifer, who have come to know the truth and then have chosen to completely refuse to accept it. On the other extreme there are people who accept all the light and knowledge they have been given and are anxiously engaged in trying to receive more until they come to know everything. In between those two extremes are people who receive some truth, but not all of it, and they will be rewarded with all the truth they have been willing to accept.

[huma17]

I don't know if your trying to be difficult on purpose, or if you really just don't understand what I was saying? I will try to spell it out for you:

'Hence unforgiveable because you wouldn't be 'forgiven' for not accepting the greater light and knowledge of the HG. Forgiven (refering to the fogiven in the statement WOULDN'T BE 'FORGIVEN') meaning to not receive the rewards of Everlasting Life, just as those who are punished do not receive it.'

If you wish, I will add NOT to preceed the forgiven at the beginning of the last sentence, if that makes you feel better.

'While the gift of the Holy Ghost had not yet been given to those people Jesus was talking with...'

Jesus told his own disciples (who knew he was the Christ already) that they would receive the HG. You say that you believe that the HG was present for all those things I mentioned, then you state that Lucifer has a knowledge of the Lord. Remember that the devils also believe, yet the spirit cannot reveal or testify anything to those individuals. The fact remains that the HG cannot be present while Christ is. You say that transfiguration comes by the HG, but it comes by the POWER of the HG. Which is the power of God. Those are two separate things. An angel of the Lord is NOT the HG, but angels have revealed truth throughout time.

There are sins that just CANNOT receive a forgiveness for (such as murder). The scriptures, prophets, and Jesus are very clear on this fact. You may believe otherwise, but that doesn't change the truth.

'...and that through the power of Faith, which is an assurance from the Holy Ghost that certain things are true...'

Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true.

You have some abstract ideas, am I'm not sure where you get them. I am trying to give you examples straight from the scriptures, and you return with things that you believe to be true. You keep asking me if I 'got it', when I already have what the sriptures, and prophets have already said.

[huma17]

Maureen-

I am not denying that blood atonement was a true doctine of the Gospel that was practiced (in other dispensations) - it was. What I am saying, is that no modern prophet (including Brigham Young) taught it to be PRACTICED in these latter days.

Why aren't you reading what you quoted? BY said I F men C O U L D, they W O U L D be W I L L I N G!What don't you understand about that statement??

I have already pointed out that BY said you would spill the blood of another so they could receive salvation - if that was their only way. We would do this, AS CHRIST DID, out of love for mankind. BY was teaching how to view the Atonement of Christ, and how to love mankind.Again, why don't you understand this??

Yes, McConkie said the same thing about the law as BY did, but he also stated "There is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught." He also said "...wicked and evilly-disposed persons have fabricated false and slanderous stories to the effect that the Church, in the early days of this dispensation, engaged in a practice of blood atonement...'

[Ray]

'While the gift of the Holy Ghost had not yet been given to those people Jesus was talking with...'

Jesus told his own disciples (who knew he was the Christ already) that they would receive the HG.

The only disciple who knew that Jesus was the Christ before the gift of the Holy Ghost was given to them was Peter, because that knowledge had previously been revealed to him by the power of the Holy Ghost. The others simply believed, that belief being based only on trust, logic, and good reasoning, just as many people believe many things today.

Also, to expound upon another point I was trying to share earlier, I’d like you to think about the fact that Peter denied this knowledge three times, and yet our Lord still forgave him.

You say that you believe that the HG was present for all those things I mentioned, then you state that Lucifer has a knowledge of the Lord. Remember that the devils also believe, yet the spirit cannot reveal or testify anything to those individuals.

I would say that the Spirit did and does reveal and testify about all these things to these “devils”, and yet they still chose and still choose to deny it. I believe these “devils” also try to cause other people to deny these things, while knowing that these things are true and have actually happened.

The fact remains that the HG cannot be present while Christ is. You say that transfiguration comes by the HG, but it comes by the POWER of the HG.

Where did you come up with the idea that the Holy Ghost cannot be present while Christ is? The Holy Ghost was present with Jesus at His baptism, and at many other times when He gave His witness to other people. What scriptures or reasoning do you use to support your idea?

And apparently you don’t realize that I said that the transfiguration came by the power of the Holy Ghost. Where did you get the idea that I didn’t say that?

Which [the power of the Holy Ghost] is the power of God. Those are two separate things. An angel of the Lord is NOT the HG, but angels have revealed truth throughout time.

The power of the Holy Ghost is the power of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is God. I know that the Holy Ghost is a different person than God our Father, and that every angel of the Lord is not the Holy Ghost. I could get into a discussion with you about what an “Angel” is and what a “God” is, but I’ll leave that for another discussion.

There are sins that just CANNOT receive a forgiveness for (such as murder). The scriptures, prophets, and Jesus are very clear on this fact. You may believe otherwise, but that doesn't change the truth.

I’ll leave the sin of murder for another discussion too. Right now I’m only talking about the sin against the Holy Ghost.

'...and that through the power of Faith, which is an assurance from the Holy Ghost that certain things are true...'

Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true.

You have some abstract ideas, am I'm not sure where you get them. I am trying to give you examples straight from the scriptures, and you return with things that you believe to be true. You keep asking me if I 'got it', when I already have what the scriptures, and prophets have already said.

I testify that I get my ideas from the Holy Ghost. Many people have what the scriptures and prophets have said in front of their face, yet many of them cannot see the truth. For that you need Faith, which is an assurance from the Holy Ghost who tells us that something is true. True, we can’t see that assurance, just as we cannot see Love, but those things still exist and they do manifest themselves to us in ways that we can know to be true. Faith isn’t the same thing as trust, and it isn’t a belief arrived at by logical reasoning alone. Faith is a testimony that comes directly from the Holy Ghost Himself. True, Jesus and our heavenly Father also have an assurance of the truth, and They could also give us Their assurance, but the Holy Ghost is the One who has been assigned to testify to all the Earth, and thus we can only gain a testimony from Him. Until we have that, we do not and cannot know the truth.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by huma17@Aug 13 2004, 10:32 AM

...What I am saying, is that no modern prophet (including Brigham Young) taught it to be PRACTICED in these latter days.

Why aren't you reading what you quoted? BY said I F men C O U L D, they W O U L D be W I L L I N G!What don't you understand about that statement??...

Yes, McConkie said the same thing about the law as BY did, but he also stated "There is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught."....

I disagree.

You may think I'm not understanding your point but I must say that you are also ignoring certain statements. For example:

This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind. (JD 4: [215-220])

BY didn't say if you were allowed to help your neighbor by killing him you should do it. He was giving the members permission to actually do it.

In my research I have 2 names that were executed (in this dispensation, as you put it) with the idea of blood atonement in mind. Rosmos Anderson (19th century) and Gary Gilmore (1977).

M.

[huma17]

Faith comes first, not last. We start with faith, not end with it. We seek the truth because of faith - that which we hope and believe to be true. Then we receive a knowledge of things, after faith. Again, I don't know where you get your ideas. You say that you get them from the Holy Ghost, but the HG doesn't give us new and abstract ideas, he lets us know the truth of knowledge already given. The purpose of the HG is not to give ideas, it is to reveal truth - the truth of things that have already been given to us.

The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, he is not the FATHER. Peter received his knowledge from the Father, by the power of God - the power of the Holy Ghost. Not from the HG himself. I have already said that the power of the HG and the HG himself are seperate, why am I having to repeat it? The HG appeared in the form of a dove, not to reveal truth to anybody. I guess I could have been clearer on that statement. While Jesus was on Earth, the HG was not. He made references of the HG coming after him. The HG would be sent in his place. The HG was here before and after Christ, not during.

And yes, Peter denying Christ is another subject. Was Jesus commanding Peter...?

He did not commit blasphemy to the HG.

You believe the spirit tesitified to devils - that's what it is, your belief.

What an angel is, and what God is, is irrelevant. The angel appearing to Paul or anyone else, was not the HG. The sin of murder is unforgiveable in this dispensation. Like you said, none of this matters - in regards to blasphemy against the HG.

I feel that I'm having to repeat myself to you. You have some different ideas and beliefs - different than the ones of modern day prophets. Like I said, they are your beliefs and I don't know where you get them?

I will point to the error in your thinking, for the third time. Once someone accepted the truth, they would have the opportunity to receive Eternal Life. Hence they would be forgiven according to your logic. Again, that would mean it is NOT UNFORGIVABLE.

Let me quote: "Those who have committed the unpardonable sin, however, will not be redeemed from the devil and instead, after their resurrection, will be cast out as sons of perdition to dwell with the devil and his angels in eternity." (D. & C. 76:30-49)

I feel this discussion is going in circles.

[Ray]

I will no longer be speaking to you about this, huma17, and will instead hope and pray that the Holy Ghost confirms the truth that I have already shared with you.

I will ask you one more question, though. Where do scriptures come from, or in other words, Who inspires the prophets to write the things they have written?

Take care and have a nice day. :)

[huma17]

Maureen-

I am not ignoring anything. You are taking a part of a quote and running with it. You have to take the WHOLE quote together. He is telling the saints that if they had to spill someones blood to save them to do it - IF that is what it would take. Look at the end of the paragraph - 'That is the way to love mankind'. He says if it is 'NECESSARY' to do it, you would. It is NOT necessary, because it is/was not practiced doctrine. He is not giving them permission to kill anyone!

Like I said, if anyone killed anyone for blood atonement, it was due to erroneous beliefs. Just like those practicing polygamy today - it is false doctrine. They would have been doing so against the will of the Lord.

Stop trying to prove something that just didn't happen!

[huma17]

Ray, if your implying that the scriptures are from the HG, and prophets are inspired from the HG, it still doesn't prove your point. If I reject the BoM and JS after receiving a knowledge of it from the HG, but still believe that Jesus is the Christ, I will not be cast out as a son of perdition. I will still enjoy rewards and blessings, just not all. I have not commited an unforgiveable sin.

You have shared truth with me - truth according to you.

But, yes, have a nice day.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by huma17@Aug 13 2004, 12:06 PM

I am not ignoring anything. You are taking a part of a quote and running with it.

And you're not, huma?

You have to take the WHOLE quote together.

I agree. It appears we do not interpret BY's words the same.

You can dismiss BY's words and their meaning, or doubt whether those words were ever put into practice if it makes life easier. Utah in the 19th century was a very different culture and atmosphere than we could possibly imagine in the 21st century.

I don't believe the LDS church now accepts blood atonement (in belief or practice); they may have just a mere 25 years ago (remembering a conversation with a friend) but the LDS church does evolve. A few doctrines and beliefs that were easily accepted years ago seem to be vanishing from the future. Just because they are not accepted now doesn't mean they never were.

M.

[huma17]

You will believe that blood atonement was taught by BY to be practiced no matter what anybody says. If Christ himself came down and told you that you were mistaken, you would dismiss him as being a false Christ. The whole quote of BY clearly states what he meant. You are choosing to believe he taught something he didn't, because it makes YOU feel comfortable, not me.

See, I already know that blood atonement has nothing to do with our salvation in this dispensation. We have the knowledge of how to return to our Heavenly Father if we follow it. Believing in blood atonement is not one of the requirements. I am comfortable with or without a knowledge of blood atonement. You, on the other hand, need to believe in as many bad things regarding the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, because you have rejected the truth and need to feel good about it. You refuse to admit to the truth, because it goes some distance in showing that you have indeed rejected the truth.

I am not taking a part of BY's quotes, but am looking at the whole picture. If you were to do that, you would see that he didn't teach blood atonement as doctrine for latter day saints to follow. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. The state of Utah in the 19th century has nothing to do with the fact that blood atonement is not doctrine for our day. As I said, no modern prophet has taught anything contrary to that.

A hundred, a thousand, members of the church could have thought blood atonement was being taught. Some may actually have tried to follow it. The fact remains, though, that they would have done so in error. Some members today could still believe it was taught, they too are in error.

I don't need to interpret anything.

[Ray]

Let me quote: "Those who have committed the unpardonable sin, however, will not be redeemed from the devil and instead, after their resurrection, will be cast out as sons of perdition to dwell with the devil and his angels in eternity." (D. & C. 76:30-49)

Btw, for anyone interested in studying more about this issue, the reference above doesn’t state exactly what the person who posted it quoted -

30 And we saw a vision of the sufferings of those with whom he made war and overcame, for thus came the voice of the Lord unto us:

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;

42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;

43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

44 Wherefore, he saves all except them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment—

45 And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows;

46 Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof;

47 Nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again;

48 Wherefore, the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except those who are ordained unto this condemnation.

49 And we heard the voice, saying: Write the vision, for lo, this is the end of the vision of the sufferings of the ungodly.

As can be seen from the scriptures themselves, the sons of perdition are those who commit the “unpardonable sin” to the highest degree, in that they deny the Son after the Father has revealed him, which I presume happens through the power of the witness of the Holy Ghost since the Father has placed the Holy Ghost under the authority of Jesus. (See verse 42) Everyone else who denies the witness of the Holy Ghost will receive some degree of salvation, but not total salvation, because we are not truly saved unless we are brought back into the presence of the Father as was Adam in the beginning. Thus, if we don’t achieve total salvation, we will not have received total forgiveness.

[huma17]

Ray, Ray, Ray -

You prove my point with your own post. I have tried to say that there are unforgivable sins that even Christ cannot save. One is denying the HG (which you have provided scripture that states that it is denying Christ after the HG testifies to you), and one is murder. Under Mosaic Law, you could atone for the sin of murder by shedding your own blood (blood atonement), but cannot do so in this dispensation, which makes murder unforgiveable today. You tried to argue that rejecting truth (any truth), or not accepting truth from the HG was unforgiveable, because you would not receive the rewards that accepting and following the truths that the HG brings. I have continued to show you that that would not make it unforgiveable, because as soon as they accepted the truth and followed it, they would receive Eternal Life (or forgiveness as you say). You have continued to ignore this, but rather have choosen to change your stance.

In your post, you have shown that there is indeed an unforgiveable sin, which I have been saying this whole time. This is the FIRST time you have said anything regarding 'total forgiveness'. You have been changing your toon as this discussion has progressed.

You also say that you 'presume' that the Father reveals the truth about Christ, when the scripture you quote says that exact thing! Don't try to appear to prove a point, when it is the exact point I have been trying to make.

[Matt]

Under Mosaic Law, you could atone for the sin of murder by shedding your own blood (blood atonement), but cannot do so in this dispensation, which makes murder unforgiveable today. 

Ah. So we can deduce that murderers in the times of the Mosaic law are saved, but that modern day murderers cannot be saved.

And how or why does this situation exist? Why should latter-day murderers (no pun intended) be worse off than those of an earlier time?

[huma17]

It is not as simple as you put it. The murderers, as you put it, under Mosaic Law had to perform blood atonement to receive forgiveness. You cannot perform blood atonement today. The ONLY way (according to scriptures) you could receive atonement for murder was to shed your own blood to atone for that sin. If you commit murder today, you cannot perform blood atonement - it is against the will of the Lord. Ask the Lord why this is so, not me.

[Ray]

Originally posted by huma17@Aug 17 2004, 04:20 PM

Ray, Ray, Ray -

You prove my point with your own post. I have tried to say that there are unforgivable sins that even Christ cannot save. One is denying the HG (which you have provided scripture that states that it is denying Christ after the HG testifies to you), and one is murder. Under Mosaic Law, you could atone for the sin of murder by shedding your own blood (blood atonement), but cannot do so in this dispensation, which makes murder unforgiveable today. You tried to argue that rejecting truth (any truth), or not accepting truth from the HG was unforgiveable, because you would not receive the rewards that accepting and following the truths that the HG brings. I have continued to show you that that would not make it unforgiveable, because as soon as they accepted the truth and followed it, they would receive Eternal Life (or forgiveness as you say). You have continued to ignore this, but rather have choosen to change your stance.

In your post, you have shown that there is indeed an unforgiveable sin, which I have been saying this whole time. This is the FIRST time you have said anything regarding 'total forgiveness'. You have been changing your toon as this discussion has progressed.

You also say that you 'presume' that the Father reveals the truth about Christ, when the scripture you quote says that exact thing! Don't try to appear to prove a point, when it is the exact point I have been trying to make.

Heh, as far as I know, I haven't changed my thinking on this subject, so perhaps I only said things in such a way that you could see that we were in agreement. :)

[huma17]

Keep telling yourself that, ray.

All one has to do is read your previous posts. It would be obvious to anyone who read them, that what you were trying to say then, is not the same as what you are saying now.

[Ray]

Heh, it appears that you still cannot see the truth that is in front of your face.

If you're actually serious, quote something I said before that you don't believe harmonizes with what I said later and I'll show you the harmony.

[huma17]

Seriously ray, I'm not going to keep going in circles with you. I don't need to quote anything from you, all one has to do is read what you posted. I am quite certain that you will do your best to show how all of your post harmonize, but the fact remains - you have changed your stance.

If you truly have been saying the same things, but in different lights, because I have not understood. Then why is it that I am the one who has been saying the EXACT same thing throughout. Not once, have you ever said that you agreed with what I was saying, instead, you have tried to show me what YOU were meaning. If we agreed all along, and I haven't changed anything, then why didn't you say that you agreed with me in the first place? You have changed what you were saying, so that I could understand you, yet we 'supposedly' agreed the whole time? How convenient for you!

[Kevin]

Maureen,

You posted the names of two people claiming that they did indeed participate in blood atonement. I'm curious as to what evidence you have that they did particpate. I know of no evidence and have never heard that there was any.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Kevin@Aug 18 2004, 10:48 AM

Maureen,

You posted the names of two people claiming that they did indeed participate in blood atonement. I'm curious as to what evidence you have that they did particpate. I know of no evidence and have never heard that there was any.

Gary Gilmore:

In October of the same year Gilmore was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. Offered a choice as to the mode of execution, he opted to be shot. Both victims had been Mormon, and, in the opinion of his brother Mikal, Gary exercised his choice in knowing fulfillment of the Mormon doctrine of Blood Atonement. 1

Notes and References

1. Norman Mailer, The Executioner's Song, 1979

http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/...97/petch.html#1

Rosmos Anderson:

<span style='color:blue'>THE STORY OF THE MORMONS - FROM THE DATE OF THEIR ORIGIN TO THE YEAR 1901

by William Alexander Linn

CHAPTER IX.

BLOOD ATONEMENT:

John D. Lee, who says that this doctrine was "justified by all the people," gives full particulars of another instance. Among the Danish converts in Utah was Rosmos Anderson, whose wife had been a widow with a grown daughter. Anderson desired to marry his step-daughter also, and she was quite willing; but a member of the Bishop's council wanted the girl for his wife, and he was influential enough to prevent Anderson from getting the necessary consent from the head of the church. Knowing the professed horror of the church toward the crime of adultery, Anderson and the young woman, at one of the meetings during the "Reformation," confessed their guilt of that crime, thinking that in this way they would secure permission to marry. But, while they were admitted to rebaptism on their confession, the coveted permit was not issued and they were notified that to offend would be to incur death. Such a charge was very soon laid against Anderson (not against the girl), and the same council, without hearing him, decided that he must die. Anderson was so firm in the Mormon faith that he made no remonstrance, simply asking half a day for preparation. His wife provided clean clothes for the sacrifice, and his executioners dug his grave. At midnight they called for him, and, taking him to the place, allowed him to kneel by the grave and pray. Then they cut his throat, "and held him so that his blood ran into the grave." His wife, obeying instructions, announced that he had gone to California.*

*"Mormonism Unveiled," p. 282

http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Mormons/00000075.htm

M.