If LDS/mormon “Blood Atonement” doctrine and others which were phased out —?

If LDS/mormon “Blood Atonement” doctrine and others which were phased out —?
—do you think they could ever return in similar form ever again? Is it possible through the LDS’ “ongoing revelator” theory (to us) can always claim they heard something from their god, then bring them back through their Quorum?
@ shayna. I grew up mormon in UT, outskirts of SLC as a matter of fact. I do know what I am talking about, hon. Do some research if you don’t know what blood atonement was in the LDS before answering.

Best answer:

Answer by Some Everyday Nobody

Add your own answer below.

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Responses to “If LDS/mormon “Blood Atonement” doctrine and others which were phased out —?”

  • Shayna Nemrow says:

    Uhm…what? What are you talking about? Blood Atonement? The only thing MOrmons think about that is the Garden of Gethsemane. And as for modern revelation…what did God ever do to you? You know, I have a feeling that if you were back in Moses’ day, you’d think he was a nutter, stayed in Egypt, and gotten slaughtered by the pissed off slave owners. Don’t judge other religions until you know what’s up. God speaks to a good and honest man, who would do nothing on his own to hurt anyone else. And God wouldn’t for that matter either. Geez, have you even MET a Mormon??

  • Manifest Destiny says:

    Well in 1984, I saw Pres. Spencer W kimble with MIB’s and ear pieces in a car in a UT parade like they thought this guy would be snipped out, just because the LDS church did not want the budweiser wagon with the cool horses in the UT parade as well, so he waved, as the men walked around the vehicle and checked out the area on the parade route.

    Another thing, most return missionaries from overseas missions are great for the CIA< or FBI. They know another language, they have a spotless record, and they trustworthy and have overseas experience. they cna get a clearance, no debt, no criminal record, and other things that is required for a clearance.

  • Enrique C says:

    I’m actually not sure about Mormon practices and doctrines.

    I suppose it’s possible for them to bring back those doctrines but if they keep studying the Bible and looking for answers in an investigative way, then no.

    On the other hand, there is always that risk due to the Quorum, but I think that these leaders are actually trying to do what’s right, with some reservations.

  • Ziggy says:

    Once you believe in Noah, Jonah, Job, virgin births and resurrection, you can believe in any sort of other magic you’d like without much of a strain on your system.

  • Julymoon says:

    I suppose so, in the whole, “changing world” of Mormonism. If thing become to far fetched they phase it out. If something become to crazy or offending to members or others, they change it up to suite the times.
    Its just part of the whole …ongoing revelation they believe in.
    (if Thomas Monson said that he received from God that all temple garments need to be
    neon tie-dyed, members would scramble to fix the issue)

    Where BA started?
    *Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion and its first prophet, taught that certain sins were so so serious as to put the sinner “beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ.” For these fallen sinners, their “only hope” lay in having “their own blood shed to atone.” Smith made clear that the shedding of “innocent blood” (including killing anyone less than eight years old, the age of accountability in Mormon teaching) was an unpardonable sin which, along with failing to keep their covenants or betraying their testimonies, could lead to eternal damnation. In Smith’s theology, the doctrine applied only to Mormons, but it was widely viewed as providing justification for shedding the blood of apostates.
    Originally taught a FROM God to members by Brigham Young, stemmed form from teachings of Joseph Smith. (HE didn’t live long enough to see this teaching through)

    Brigham Young and his cronies, taught blood atonement for over 30 years. Members believed it because the teaching was straight from the mouth of who they revered as prophet and apostles, etc.

    “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)

    The rhetoric of blood atonement may have contributed to a culture of violence leading to the Mountain Meadows massacre.

  • Nephihah says:

    Since it did not make any difference in the first place… at least from a practical point of view, then it is really completely irrelevant as far as I can see.

    What is the point? There is none, that is obvious.

  • colebolegooglygooglyhammerhead says:

    You might want to point out any instance of the church, since it’s establishment, ever once commanding the use of “blood atonement.” If it was ever a doctrine found in the scriptures at all. Then we might talk about it “coming back.”

  • venus_smrf says:

    As you have been told many times, my trolling friend, we neither believe in nor practice blood atonement. It would go against everything we do believe. It doesn’t need to be phased out, as it was never part of our faith in the first place.

    And since when does growing up in Utah make you an expert on our beliefs? You’ve already demonstrated–numerous times–that you don’t have the faintest understanding of what we do believe.

Leave a Reply

Search MikeAdkins.com:
Article Categories
Most Popular Articles