blood atonement.... - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

fusnik11 · 10-21-2005, 03:21 PM

what does this brigham young quote mean?

"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 know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them....
"And further more, 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.... 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, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man." (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54); also published in the Mormon Church's Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

MikeWaters · 10-21-2005, 03:41 PM

I think he was referring to the Japanese ritual called Seppuku.

but I could be wrong.

Dan · 12-17-2005, 12:50 AM

... from Acts chapter 5:

1 BUT a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Ponder before responding ... but, how do you really think they died? Occam's razor may be helpful here. The New Testament is replete with blood atonement doctrine and man's need to personally atone for certasin sins, of which Ananian and Sapphira were guilty. What or who do you think killed them?

non sequitur · 12-17-2005, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

Ponder before responding ... but, how do you really think they died? Occam's razor may be helpful here. The New Testament is replete with blood atonement doctrine and man's need to personally atone for certasin sins, of which Ananian and Sapphira were guilty. What or who do you think killed them?

You can call it blood atonement, but it sounds to me like a land deal gone bad and somebody got his ass capped. Maybe blood atonement is nothing more than a rationale for certain people to cover up their murderous acts.

Dan · 12-17-2005, 06:30 PM

... what is the significance of your photo there with your posts?

Anyway, blood atonement is a dangerous concept when administered by mortal men. I think the scriptures teach the truth of the idea, but any time man is in charge, well, things can get out of control if men wield it while trying to gain power and gratify their pride and vain ambition.

non sequitur · 12-17-2005, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

... what is the significance of your photo there with your posts?

You'd have to look at this thread to understand it:
http://www.cougarguard.com/phpBB2/vi...er=asc&start=0

VAX77 · 12-17-2005, 08:39 PM

I think Jake is absolutely dreamy.....

ops:

On another note, how many of you talked about dusting off your shoes on your missions? Someone once asked my mission president about that in mission home dinner, asking him how it is specifically done, etc. He said simply, if you are supposed to do it, you will know how, when, where, why, etc. I then heard of a missionary doing it or I whould say trying to do it in my zone. He was a moron who had a lot of issues, I was a zl at the time and had to deal with those issues. I also know the sisters in my zone washed investigators feet during discussions...

I think it is kind of like blood atonement. All the speculation in the world will not matter because unless it comes from God, then how the hell do I know? It does not hurt to ask or think about it however.

Interesting stuff ...

BTW, I am sorry for the "my mission president said, blah blah blah, I just think what he said was not earth shattering controversial stuff, so I included it.

VAX77 · 12-17-2005, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

... from Acts chapter 5:

1 BUT a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Ponder before responding ... but, how do you really think they died? Occam's razor may be helpful here. The New Testament is replete with blood atonement doctrine and man's need to personally atone for certasin sins, of which Ananian and Sapphira were guilty. What or who do you think killed them?

I tend to speak before thinking, so I hope this makes sense. I have to say the thought of blood atonement does not bother me and if A & S were killed by Peter or someone else, it does not take away at all from my view of the gospel. I think many LDS tend to have a very "neat and tidy" view of the gospel, and I realize it probably could not be further from the truth, yet it is only shocking if you had pre-conceived notions. Kind of like finding out santa claus is not real or even more like finding out for the first time that your parents have had sex. :shock:

All-American · 12-18-2005, 07:28 PM

The full text of this sermon is available here, and it is an interesting read:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/...datonement.htm

Brigham was a speaker whose bluntness still makes people squirm. He frankly was not gifted with soothing eloquence that would quell the masses. In this case, though, I don't see anything entirely wrong with what he says in the sermon.

The format of Brigham's sermon allow for two areas from which the problem stems. First, the quotes are often taken out of context. What he said makes more sense when read with the rest of the text. Second, we over-apply the concept.

Any reference to the shedding of blood as an act of atonement is a hypothetical. He never flatly says that there is a provision given under which Latter-Day saints are to shed the blood of their brethren contrary to given law. What he does do, however, is give a moral base for the practice of government sanctioned execution. In this sermon he refers to the fact that anciently, adulterers were executed according to the Law of Moses. He places the responsability of dispatching a sinner to the spirit world on the shoulders of God and government. Under no circumstances is a secret police of Mormon Mafia construable from what he has said.

I simply do not believe that this church at any time has ever sanctioned the shedding of blood without governmental authorization. This sermon does explain the moral rationale of execution in general, however.

Iluvatar · 12-19-2005, 04:11 AM

Blood atonement was nothing more, and nothing less than a tool for Brigham Young to keep his flock in fear (fear of god, and fear of Brigham himself).

Blood atonement, as taught by Brigham and his compatriots, was the driving force behind the numerous massacres that occurred during Utah's "bloody period".

The more one studies the early days of the church, the more one realizes that we do not belong to the same organization that Joseph, Brigham, and the rest of their lot founded. I would not have belonged to that church!

All-American,

There are documented cases of bishops and stake presidents taking mens' lives(and other things) in ritualized acts of blood atonement.

FWIW

10-21-2005, 03:21 PM	#1
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	blood atonement.... what does this brigham young quote mean? "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 know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.... "And further more, 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.... 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, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man." (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54); also published in the Mormon Church's Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

12-17-2005, 12:50 AM	#3
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Consider the following verses ... ... from Acts chapter 5: 1 BUT a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. 11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things. Ponder before responding ... but, how do you really think they died? Occam's razor may be helpful here. The New Testament is replete with blood atonement doctrine and man's need to personally atone for certasin sins, of which Ananian and Sapphira were guilty. What or who do you think killed them? __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

12-17-2005, 06:30 PM	#5
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Non Seq ... ... what is the significance of your photo there with your posts? Anyway, blood atonement is a dangerous concept when administered by mortal men. I think the scriptures teach the truth of the idea, but any time man is in charge, well, things can get out of control if men wield it while trying to gain power and gratify their pride and vain ambition. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

12-19-2005, 04:11 AM	#10
Iluvatar Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 52	Blood Atonement... Blood atonement was nothing more, and nothing less than a tool for Brigham Young to keep his flock in fear (fear of god, and fear of Brigham himself). Blood atonement, as taught by Brigham and his compatriots, was the driving force behind the numerous massacres that occurred during Utah's "bloody period". The more one studies the early days of the church, the more one realizes that we do not belong to the same organization that Joseph, Brigham, and the rest of their lot founded. I would not have belonged to that church! All-American, There are documented cases of bishops and stake presidents taking mens' lives(and other things) in ritualized acts of blood atonement. FWIW __________________ \"What we do in life echoes in eternity\"

10-21-2005, 03:41 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I think he was referring to the Japanese ritual called Seppuku. but I could be wrong.

12-17-2005, 08:39 PM	#7
VAX77 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 106	I think Jake is absolutely dreamy..... ops: On another note, how many of you talked about dusting off your shoes on your missions? Someone once asked my mission president about that in mission home dinner, asking him how it is specifically done, etc. He said simply, if you are supposed to do it, you will know how, when, where, why, etc. I then heard of a missionary doing it or I whould say trying to do it in my zone. He was a moron who had a lot of issues, I was a zl at the time and had to deal with those issues. I also know the sisters in my zone washed investigators feet during discussions... I think it is kind of like blood atonement. All the speculation in the world will not matter because unless it comes from God, then how the hell do I know? It does not hurt to ask or think about it however. Interesting stuff ... BTW, I am sorry for the "my mission president said, blah blah blah, I just think what he said was not earth shattering controversial stuff, so I included it.

12-18-2005, 07:28 PM	#9
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	The full text of this sermon is available here, and it is an interesting read: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/...datonement.htm Brigham was a speaker whose bluntness still makes people squirm. He frankly was not gifted with soothing eloquence that would quell the masses. In this case, though, I don't see anything entirely wrong with what he says in the sermon. The format of Brigham's sermon allow for two areas from which the problem stems. First, the quotes are often taken out of context. What he said makes more sense when read with the rest of the text. Second, we over-apply the concept. Any reference to the shedding of blood as an act of atonement is a hypothetical. He never flatly says that there is a provision given under which Latter-Day saints are to shed the blood of their brethren contrary to given law. What he does do, however, is give a moral base for the practice of government sanctioned execution. In this sermon he refers to the fact that anciently, adulterers were executed according to the Law of Moses. He places the responsability of dispatching a sinner to the spirit world on the shoulders of God and government. Under no circumstances is a secret police of Mormon Mafia construable from what he has said. I simply do not believe that this church at any time has ever sanctioned the shedding of blood without governmental authorization. This sermon does explain the moral rationale of execution in general, however.