It depends, did you go thru the temple before or after 1990? LOL. It's probably Whatever suites the climate of the times, I would imagine. Blood Atonement was at one time representative of thier official stance, but that has changed so I am not sure now.
Like the young stripling warriors of the Book of Mormon, I learned important, eternal truths at my mother's knee. One of them was the need to spill blood for some sins.
I think I was in the eighth grade when Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad at the Utah State prison. This was the first execution in a number of years and it was in the news every night for what seemed like months. My mother carefully explained the doctrine of Blood Atonement to me. She taught me how some sins were just too big to be covered by the Lord's sacrifice in Gethsemane and if the sinner was to have any hope at all, blood must be shed.
Who knows what the PR machine will say now, but back in the day Capital Punishment was not only endorsed, it was celebrated.
I was 20. My boyfriend got his mission call about this time (he was 20, too--I talked him into going. I get a good laugh out of that one now)--maybe even the same day. It all seems to blend together.
Yep--they used to believe it. I heard the same argument growing up as others have voiced--that the only way a person could ever be forgiven for murder was to have his own blood shed.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2011 12:34PM by cl2.
wowbagger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > What part of "infinite" is not clear and would > require additional shedding of blood?
D.C. 19: 10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.
Why didn't this "infinite" atonement clear up the priesthood issue? If the atonement was "infinite" why did God require any shedding of blood in the first place? If it was useful to have a type to point forward, why not a type to point backward? I am not advocating for a return to this practice, just raising the issue for doctrinal consistency.
I believe that about 70% of U.S. voters favor cappun in the most aggrivating circumstances, and we also know that the Moridor is very conservative in their views.
As far as ChurchCo is involved, just look outside to see which way the wind is blowing.
They don't teach that anymore.....but they used to.
The Gilmore execution caused an uproar in the national media as Gilmore was allowed the choice if firing squad. It was openly discussed that the teaching of blood atonement was the reason it remained an option.
For many years afterwards, some state legislator would introduce a bill to do away with the firing squad, but it was always defeated - usally never made it out of committee. Again, it was openly discussed that since more state legislators were LDS, the belief in the teaching of blood atonement was the reason.
I don't have the exact date available, but one year it was introduced again and looked like it would again be defeated. Until the LDS church issued a (false IMO) statement that blood atonement was not (and never had been?) an LDS teaching. Suddenly state senators were tripping over themselves to have their name on the bill and it went on to pass.
It was the first time that most nevermos outside of Utah/The Morridor were introduced to the concept of blood atonement. At that point in time, death by firing squad was viewed by most people as being inhumane, barbaric, and highly unusual. It was not a shining moment in the spotlight for the state of Utah.
We all know that beliefs can persist long after church authorities offically disavow them. The concept of blood atonement is one such example.
"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 a strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not destroy them.”
- Brigham Young Journal of Discourses Volume 4 Page 53
Also, check out page 92-93 of Mormon Doctrine. Bruce R. McConkey pretty much says until we can once again practice this, capital punishment is acceptable in stead.
Press statements are for the outside world. The real doctrine is in the scriptures, and, more precisely, in the annotations thereof.
Through the use of chapter introductions, footnotes and the topical guide, the church directs the members to interpret the text the "correct" way - which, very often, has nothing to do with what the text actually says.
Now, with that in mind, take your topical guide, turn to the entry on capital punishment and count the references pro and con.
In Alma 1, it talks about the execution of Nehor and calls it justified under God's law for cases of murder. Also, many Mormons like to use the Law of Moses to justify it. Too many think that that law is awesome and needs to be restored.
When it comes to the church and official pronouncements .... it's all jello/fluid from here on out. There's no such thing as concrete doctrine in the church anymore except that you're supposed to obey your leaders.
The doctrine of blood atonement is pure evil in my opinion. They intentionally limited the atonement. These "brethren" are a bunch of liars if they act like they never taught blood atonement.
I remember my Dad teaching this doctrine to me as a child. What a sick cult!
D&C 42:18-19 . . . Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. . . . thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.
Utah is the only state that still does firing squad executions.The LDS Church has no official position on the Death Penalty. The last was June 18, 2010. Their silence, to me, still shows me they still support executions