The Brothers Bundy, Lafferty, and Mormon Myth

[_Chap]

There was no remorse, of course, because the Lafferties truly believed in Brigham Young's Mormon myth of Blood Atonement.

If you honestly believe that a man had no remorse for brutally murdering a 15-month-old girl and her mother exclusively or primarily because of an outdated and long-rejected bit of doctrine then you are just grotesquely stupid.

Out-dated and long-rejected? By the Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism, no doubt.

But that does not necessarily mean that what the Prophet Brigham Young taught no longer has any influence with groups or individuals who see themselves as just as authentically Mormon as Thomas S. Monson.

And as for "exclusively or primarily" - that of course would be hard to prove (and who is suggesting anything so naïve?). But given that Young does seem to have taught that under some circumstances the best thing you could do for someone was to spill their blood, can he be cleared of all responsibility so easily as that?

[_Maksutov]

Out-dated and long-rejected? By the Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism, no doubt.

But that does not necessarily mean that what the Prophet Brigham Young taught no longer has any influence with groups or individuals who see themselves as just as authentically Mormon as Thomas S. Monson.

And as for "exclusively or primarily" - that of course would be hard to prove (and who is suggesting anything so naïve?). But given that Young does seem to have taught that under some circumstances the best thing you could do for someone was to spill their blood, can he be cleared of all responsibility so easily as that?

This reminds me of the controversies over Islamic fatwas. A vestigial doctrine/practice that doesn't quite go away even if the majority of adherents reject it. An ongoing source of conflict, mostly internal.

[_ludwigm]

Two new post has been made to this topic while I wrote this...
See above!

There was no remorse, of course, because the Lafferties truly believed in Brigham Young's Mormon myth of Blood Atonement.

If you honestly believe that a man had no remorse for brutally murdering a 15-month-old girl and her mother exclusively or primarily because of an outdated and long-rejected bit of doctrine then you are just grotesquely stupid.

What?

Outdated and long-rejected bit of doctrine?
Of doctrines which are never changing? And which were not grotesquely stupid at the time they were revealed?

Should I be more precise? OK.
Blood Atonement WAS a doctrine. Something taught, written in documents, preached from pulpit, by then mouthpiece of god. Brigham Young.

Outdated? Something was revealed by god can become outdated ever?

Long rejected? Who did reject it? Please cite the source.
This is a real question for You, maklelan!

Who, when, where did reject the Blood Atonement? Who did say "this is not a doctrine, this is invalid, this is something WE shouldn't follow"?

Source, if I may ask.
From an official site, such as LDS.org!

And, additionally, by name of any who counts. Not one of noname newsroom essay writers...

[_maklelan]

Out-dated and long-rejected? By the Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism, no doubt.

But that does not necessarily mean that what the Prophet Brigham Young taught no longer has any influence with groups or individuals who see themselves as just as authentically Mormon as Thomas S. Monson.

And as for "exclusively or primarily" - that of course would be hard to prove (and who is suggesting anything so naïve?). But given that Young does seem to have taught that under some circumstances the best thing you could do for someone was to spill their blood, can he be cleared of all responsibility so easily as that?

I'm not trying to clear someone of responsibility, I'm pointing to the laughable stupidity of suggesting a bit of doctrine completely overpowered a person's otherwise normal sense of right and wrong.

[_ludwigm]

Outdated and long rejected?

I'm not trying to clear someone of responsibility, I'm pointing to the laughable stupidity of suggesting a bit of doctrine completely overpowered a person's otherwise normal sense of right and wrong.

Doctrine? Revelation?

- [#img] http://img2.indafoto.hu/10/1/57091_6715 ... f0e3_m.jpg[/img] -

Who does suggest the doctrines?

[_Chap]

I'm pointing to the laughable stupidity of suggesting a bit of doctrine completely overpowered a person's otherwise normal sense of right and wrong.

Why, so you are. And to suggest that would indeed be laughably stupid.

Has somebody made that suggestion? I mean, it would involve a scenario equivalent to a nice Mormon guy (maybe you?) walking home whistling a merry tune, then someone stands in front of him and tells him about BY's blood atonement doctrine, his eyes widen, he stops off a a hardware store to buy a really big knife, and ... you know the rest.

Has anyone suggested that is what took place?

[_DrW]

[_cacheman]

I wonder if Nephi had remorse after beheading Laban,... after all he was just doing what God commanded

[Guest]

There was no remorse, of course, because the Lafferties truly believed in Brigham Young's Mormon myth of Blood Atonement.

If you honestly believe that a man had no remorse for brutally murdering a 15-month-old girl and her mother exclusively or primarily because of an outdated and long-rejected bit of doctrine then you are just grotesquely stupid.

Hello Maklelan,

First of all, did you bother to read the Krakauer article that was linked to in the OP?

If not, did you at least read the excerpt from said article that was quoted in the OP?

Had you done either before you went through your ready / fire / aim routine, you would have seen that Krakauer's statement regarding no remorse was based on a in-person prison interviews with Bro. Dan Lafferty himself.

Furthermore, had you read the article, you would have seen that Krakauer, again based on interviews with Bro. Lafferty, attributed Lafferty's belief that the killings were God's will largely on his belief in Blood Atonement.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that this kind of religious nonsense can, and often does, give rise to all kinds of anti-social behaviors, including the murder of innocents?

Apologists and senior Church leaders are becoming well known for telling Mormons to understand and embrace their history. Looks as though the better one does on the understanding part, the more difficult the embracing part becomes.

[_Morley]

I'm not trying to clear someone of responsibility, I'm pointing to the laughable stupidity of suggesting a bit of doctrine completely overpowered a person's otherwise normal sense of right and wrong.

Nineteenth Century Nauvoo Mormon polyandry.