2007-09-01 17:41:30 · 14 answers · asked by Tinkerbelle2007 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Read the Joural of discoures Brigham Young taught it. Much of the leaders in that time practice it. thats why Mountian Meodows Massarce happen. Read the book A life in bondage by Ann Eliza Young Wife no. 19. Bigham Young's apostate wife. She talks about Murders that happen because of blood atonement
2007-09-02 05:49:42 · update #1
Chris- O.F is correct, the early leaders taught that there were some sins that the atonement didn't cover. Up until 2004 Utah prisoners could choose death by firing squad.
You say that the J of D is only their opinion? Then why did they teach it as doctrine? These leaders were addressing the early saints as a group. They weren't talking to someone in the barber shop or in their back yard. It seems to me that when the LDS are ashamed of what their early leaders have said, so they say "oh, that was only their opinion, it's not doctrine". Funny I always thought that the prophet was the lord's mouthpiece. Why would he let his "mouthpiece", say things that aren't doctrinal, knowing that his followers would take it as doctrine? Things the make you go, HHHMMMM.
2007-09-04 02:25:09 · answer #1 · answered by MistyAnn 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a term that was used during the beginning of the Church history. We do not use it anymore. There are some sins that a member or others have to atone for on their own. Two of the sins is adultry and also during the beginning killing the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother. This is what lead to the Mountain Meadows massacre. This is no longer practiced by members of the Church.
2007-09-01 18:33:22 · answer #2 · answered by Hawaiiflower 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There was a belief that there are some sins so heinous that one can not fully repent of in this life. Blood Atonement was the option for someone who committed such a crime to allow themselves to be killed (aka death penalty) so they can more speedily go to spirit prison and pay for their deeds. Blood Atonement was only available to those who asked for it.
This concept was never canonized and has not been preached from the pulpits in my lifetime.
2007-09-01 19:41:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Jamie & Bongenet are the same person.
Brigham Young called for blood atonement of people
who takes the life of an innocent person.
Today it's called the death penalty 4 murders.
Antimormons play games with throwing out old & yes
strange doctrines from the 1800s without them
truthfully defining, exaggerating, deceiving, or posting half truths.
2007-09-01 18:26:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It's a phrase you heard a Mormon basher use, and he/she couldn't define it.
It literally means "atonement by blood". A little obvious. To break it down more, it means to "make up for" a sin or transgression with the shedding of blood. It's a term used in a lot of war time pep-talks from the middle ages. It is sometimes still used when talking about vengeance, though not often.
It is NOT a Mormon term. Mormons did not coin the term, and they do not use it in teachings.
-EDIT-
Oregon Flower, exactly how many "Biblical Theologians" do you know? And how is it that they ALL refuse to accept Mormonism as anything besides a cult? Can you back up that statement?
2007-09-01 17:52:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
Blood atonement: That Christ took on the sins of the world in Gethsemane, and he felt that the sins were on him and sweat blood. Then they went to Kirtland, and then Missouri, where the REAL persecution was.
2007-09-02 13:23:52 · answer #6 · answered by mormon_4_jesus 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not a term we use
Atonement is Jesus Christ sacrifice for us so that we can repent of our sins.
He Bled in the garden and on the cross for us but no one in my 40+ years has called it a blood Atonement
D
What do you think it is?
Added:
Oregon F. did not answer the question and also has her information wrong as usual
Yes we consider the bleeding at Gethsemane to be a significant part of the Atonement as any biblical scholar would but we also believe that he carried that suffering on the cross and finished the Atonement there.
D
2007-09-01 17:46:05 · answer #7 · answered by Dionysus 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
WoW I been a member of the LDS (Mormon) Faith for over 40 years and never heard of anything like what you people said,, Mind quoteing some sources as to where you got this misinformation ??
2007-09-01 17:54:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
In Mormonism, blood atonement is the controversial concept that there are certain sins to which the atonement of Jesus does not apply, and that before a Mormon who has committed these sins can achieve the highest degree of salvation, he or she must personally atone for the sin by "having their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins".
2007-09-01 17:44:56 · answer #9 · answered by bongernet 2 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Get overy yourself already!!! The Journal of Discourses is NOT doctrine. It's one man's opinion and thoughts.
OREGON FLOWER: Quit acting like an expert when you obviously know NOTHING about our faith.
2007-09-02 18:21:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋