Gaz advocates death by blood atonement for Chad Hardy?

[_moksha]

I don't think Gaz has ever advocated death for anyone except those who are still LDS. Thus one could seemingly easily avoid Gaz's gruesome death by simply renouncing Mormonism and not trying to counsel the brethren to accept sin. I don't think Gaz is advocating death for atheists although he may have some other thoughts on that. Do I have that right, Gaz?

Renounce Mormonism or be murdered by Mormon zealotry? Glad that is a choice no one has to make.

by the way, this is yet again another crystal reason for anonymity. You never know what blood atoners may be lurking out there beyond the reach of the mental health system.

[_Hally McIlrath]

I don't think Gaz has ever advocated death for anyone except those who are still LDS.

So practicing homosexuals who are not LDS are exempted from his future Millennial atonement bloodbath?

Thus one could seemingly easily avoid Gaz's gruesome death by simply renouncing Mormonism and not trying to counsel the brethren to accept sin.

Why should anyone ever become a Mormon, then? If I become a Mormon, and then mess up, I die by blood atonement. If I don't become a Mormon at all, I'm fine.

I don't think Gaz is advocating death for atheists although he may have some other thoughts on that. Do I have that right, Gaz?

Are you saying that people of the same sex pressing their naughty bits together is worse than not believing in God and leaving the church? Because I don't think the scriptures bear that out.

In fact, apostasy and unbelief are grounds for blood atonement.

"During this period Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders also repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women. Blood-atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, 'covenant breaking,' counterfeiting, 'many men who left this Church,' murder, not being 'heartily on the Lord's side,' profaning 'the name of the Lord,' sexual intercourse between a 'white' person and an African-American, stealing, and telling lies..." The Mormon hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pages 241-261.

However, I could not find an instance of where homosexuality is. Looks like I'm going to be slated for death, but not anyone who is gay. I'd like to see a reference for homosexuality specifically mentioned, since it did not make Dr. Quinn's list, above.

...I hope none of you have lied or stolen anything. Gaz will be digging your grave right next to mine.

I think Renegade makes a good point about the purported idea of blood atonement. My understanding was that it was purportedly voluntary (with high pressure of course). Also, it was allegedly not about preventing more sin, as Gaz has seemingly argued, but rather about making it possible to repent of murder or other sins that would otherwise be unforgivable.

It's going to take quite a bit of work to convince me that a person is capable of voluntarily slitting their own throat. I don't think they have the leverage necessary in order to carry though with cutting the skin and severing the jugular, not to mention that they would most likely pass out before completing the stroke. No, I think that death by throat-slitting is very much something that is acted out upon another individual.

But regardless, to advocate blood atonement is to say that Jesus' blood was not enough to wash away sin. Making that statement flies in the face of these scriptures:

I John 1:7 -- "The blood of Jesus Christ His [God's] Son cleanses us from all sin."

Not some sin, not just little tiny inconsequential sins, all sin.

Further:

Mosiah 4:2, 7 -- "O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts my be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth and all things; who shall come down among the children of men...And this is the means whereby salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of; neither are there any conditions whereby man can be saved except the conditions which I have told you"

That seems quite straightforward to me on the matter.

[_asbestosman]

I think Renegade makes a good point about the purported idea of blood atonement. My understanding was that it was purportedly voluntary (with high pressure of course). Also, it was allegedly not about preventing more sin, as Gaz has seemingly argued, but rather about making it possible to repent of murder or other sins that would otherwise be unforgivable.

It's going to take quite a bit of work to convince me that a person is capable of voluntarily slitting their own throat. I don't think they have the leverage necessary in order to carry though with cutting the skin and severing the jugular, not to mention that they would most likely pass out before completing the stroke. No, I think that death by throat-slitting is very much something that is acted out upon another individual.

Correct, that was my understanding. It's just that the individual willingly submitted to it rather than having it forced upon him.

[_asbestosman]

Renounce Mormonism or be murdered by Mormon zealotry? Glad that is a choice no one has to make.

It's not what I'm advocating, but it does seem to be what Gaz was saying if I understand correctly.

[_Ray A]

Whatever may have occurred in the early days, and there are reports of members willingly submitting to blood atonement, here is a First Presidency statement written in 1889:

MANIFESTO OF THE PRESIDENCY AND APOSTLES

"SALT LAKE CITY, Dec. 12th, 1889.

To Whom It May Concern:

In consequence of gross misrepresentations of the doctrines, aims and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the 'Mormon' church, which have been promulgated for years, and have recently been revived for political purposes and to prevent all aliens, otherwise qualified, who are members of the 'Mormon' church from acquiring citizenship, we deem it proper on behalf of said church to publicly deny these calumnies and enter our protest against them.

We solemnly make the following declarations, viz.:

That this church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost abhorrence. That we regard the killing of a human being, except in conformity with the civil law, as a capital crime, which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the land. * * *

We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.

The revelations of God to this church make death the penalty of capital crime, and require that offenders against life and property shall be delivered up and tried by the laws of the land.

We declare that no bishop's or other court in this church claims or exercises civil or judicial functions, or the right to supercede, annul or modify a judgment of any civil court. Such courts, while established to regulate Christian conduct, are purely ecclesiastical, and their punitive powers go no further than the suspension or excommunication of members from church fellowship. * * *

[Signed]:

"WILFORD WOODRUFF, GEORGE Q. CANNON, JOSEPH F. SMITH,

Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

LORENZO SNOW, GEORGE TEASDALE,
FRANKLIN D. RICHARDS, HEBER J. GRANT,
BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOHN W. TAYLOR,
MOSES THATCHER, W. W. MERRILL,
FRANCIS M. LYMAN, A. H. LUND,
JOHN HENRY SMITH, ABRAHAM H. CANNON,

Members of the Council of the Apostles.

JOHN W. YOUNG, DANIEL H. WELLS, Counselors."

http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/blood.html

Theoretically, blood atonement can only operate under a theocracy, where the Church manages the State.

[Guest]

Correct, that was my understanding. It's just that the individual willingly submitted to it rather than having it forced upon him.

Here's what I don't understand. According to the ordinance of Blood Atonement, there are some sins so grievous that Christ's death upon the Cross is not enough to cover them, whether one wallows in utter sincere repentance or not. Therefore, their own, human, mortal blood must be spilled on the ground in order for them to have a chance at....what, exactly? If it is the "unforgivable sin" to murder, what good is blood atonement? One dies by blood atonement, reaches Heaven, and is still not forgiven. So what is the appeal of having your throat voluntarily slit? It won't do you a bit of good anyway. The sin is unforgivable.

What concerns me is that Gaz is doing his level best to conflate murder and homosexuality, so that he can include anyone guilty of the latter in his warm, fuzzy fantasy of a future murderous blood-letting rampage carried out by our peaceful, Christ-loving overlords of the Millennial age.

[_Jersey Girl]

So Ray,

Does Gaz's position have a doctrinal leg to stand on or not?

Jersey Girl

[_moksha]

It's not what I'm advocating...

I realize that. I doubt even Loran or Schryver would back him way out on this limb.

Theoretically, blood atonement can only operate under a theocracy, where the Church manages the State.

This is a good point to remember should Mitt Romney be a Vice Presidential contender.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's what I don't understand. According to the ordinance of Blood Atonement, there are some sins so grievous that Christ's death upon the Cross is not enough to cover them, whether one wallows in utter sincere repentance or not. Therefore, their own, human, mortal blood must be spilled on the ground in order for them to have a chance at....what, exactly? If it is the "unforgivable sin" to murder, what good is blood atonement? One dies by blood atonement, reaches Heaven, and is still not forgiven. So what is the appeal of having your throat voluntarily slit? It won't do you a bit of good anyway. The sin is unforgivable.

You make rational sense here Hally. Welcome to the board and stick around.

Jersey Girl

[_Jason Bourne]

I have serious issues with anyone who's going to try to tell me gays are born that way.

Well your Church says that they don't know whether they are or not. They take no position on nature or nurture and they certainly at not as Old Testament about it as you are.

Are pedophiles born that way?

Not sure. Might be. I hope not.

Are furries born that way?

Huh?

Are swingers born that way?

I do not know.

Are guys that like to get defacated on by hookers born that way?

I doubt it.