That is interesting stuff. I admit I have not done as much looking into the matter as with other topics, so most of what I'm reading here I've not seen before. With that said, I have four questions. Regarding the idea and practice of Blood Atonement,
1.) How much of what is said regarding the practice, be it contextual reinterpretation or actual event, is actually the result of press unfavorable to Mormons? (I recognize that the citation given above was so done by a Mormon, but how accurate are his conclusions, his sources, the conclusion given by his sources, etc. all the way back to the event they describe?)
2.)To what extent are the practices of Blood Atonement consistant with the law of Moses, which also demanded execution in many situations no longer considered to be worthy of capital punishment? In considering this question, it is important to remember that for the early years, the church played an important role in government in the territory of Utah.
3.) How many of the teachings of the doctrine apply today, and
4.) what has been the method of removal for those that were disposed of?
These are honest inquiries. If the answers are "None, none, all, and none" then I'd like to hear them.
|