Gaz advocates death by blood atonement for Chad Hardy?

[_Nightingale]

You think murdering someone for being homosexual is rational and just and within your realm of responsibility?

I'm dumbstruck.

Another reason for people to post anonymously I guess.

I thought I had read just recently a post from an LDS who charged that blood atonement is "an anti-Mormon lie". Some members really seem to like the concept though.

You know the first thought that entered my head when I read your posts about this? I must have misunderstood your meaning and I went back for a second read and then a third.

My second thought was that your comments strongly remind me of the "Lafferty boys" described so chillingly by Jon Krakauer. What is different about someone who has firm beliefs like this and someone who carries them out? One just takes the opportunity?

Wow.

That's quite an outlook. I actually thought I was done being shocked on these boards.

[Guest]

Ren,

You really do see this as a reasonable response. Don't you. You aren't kidding...

In the case of the unrepentant member? Yes....

But isn't the whole point of blood atonement that it allows access to forgiveness for sins that can't be 'repented for' .via 'normal means'? Wouldn't even matter if the individual involved wanted to repent or not. It wouldn't be about wanting to. It would be about simply not being able to - 'any other way'.

Me-thinks this is less about an accurate portrayal of the principle of 'blood atonement'. I think this is more about you having such an irrational hatred of homosexuality, that you are getting your rocks off to the idea of a homosexual 'spilling their own blood'. Or, maybe you've even fantasised about the future theocracy where it can legitimately be enforced upon the 'guilty' - against their will. Maybe you have even fantasised about having the honour of inflicting the killing blow yourself...

"Jesus wept"

[_Nightingale]

PS: Do we even know Chad's sexual orientation?

I know a gay guy who is a pro photog. He takes gorgeous photos of glam females. It doesn't make him straight though.

I don't think that a photog's subject matter necessarily reflects his sexual preferences. That would seem pretty obvious to me.

I thought you don't get ex'd from the LDS Church for being gay. Producing a calendar, though, seems like a very minor act to warrant excommunication. Maybe I missed part of the story? I didn't see any nudity or near-nudity in that calendar. Is it that they were out of their g's or that it is assumed that taking photos of males automatically indicates that you are gay or what? Even if so, does that warrant excom? There must be more...

[_Nightingale]

PS again: Another thought:

The blood atonement concept is not Christian in that it indicates, as I understand it, that "Jesus' blood is not enough". The mishies explained to me (accurately or inaccurately) that there are some crimes/sins that are "not covered by Jesus' blood". I understood them to mean murder. Even so, theologically speaking, if you do not believe that the death of Jesus on the cross is sufficient atonement for the sins of mankind, including your own, you are missing the basic premise of Christianity, as far as I understand it from my association with numerous different Christian denominations. Indeed, coming to that realization and accepting it is the primary step you take before uttering the "sinner's prayer" or whatever similar step each individual does to become a Christian and acknowledge same.

If anyone still wonders why mainstream Christians don't accept LDS Christianity, the blood atonement doctrine/practice/belief is a big one.

Closely followed by the age-old argument re grace/works. Saying that grace kicks in "after all you can do" is a theological counterpart to the concept of blood atonement, both teaching that you must yourself cover the part that Jesus can't. That doesn't gel with Christianity as I know it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Ren,

You really do see this as a reasonable response. Don't you. You aren't kidding...

In the case of the unrepentant member? Yes....

You are a sick dude and scary, if you really believe this.

Blood atonement was another wild eyed idea from BY, like AG, that never really had anything to do with God.

[_Ray A]

I would advocate it for an unrepentant member of the church who is trying to make himself be seen as normal. Those goofy types who want to meet with the prophet in hopes of getting the doctrine reversed.

Surely, Gaz, you wouldn't consider the late Professor Eugene England a "goofy type"? He met with Joseph Fielding Smith for an explanation of why the "Black Ban" was in place, and to ask the President if he could justify this from scripture. JFS couldn't, and admitted this privately, though the false ideas about Blacks continued to flourish. (This meeting occurred before the ban was lifted.) England's encounter with Mc Conkie is now also fairly well known. Mc Conkie to England (Feb. 19, 1981):

If it is true, as I am advised, that you speak on this subject of the progression of God at firesides and elsewhere, you should cease to do so. If you give other people copies of the material you sent me, with the quotations it contains, you should cease to do so. It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what is doctrines shall be. It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ," and that their ministry is to see that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:11-16.) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact still remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. The Lord's house is a house of order and those who hold the keys are appointed to proclaim the doctrines....Now I hope you will ponder and pray and come to a basic understanding of fundamental things and that unless and until you can on all points, you will remain silent on those where differences exist between you and the Brethren. This is the course of safety. I advise you to pursue it. If you do not, perils lie ahead. It is not too often in this day that any of us are told plainly and bluntly what ought to be. I am taking the liberty of so speaking to you at this time, and become thus a witness against you if you do not take the counsel. (Emphasis added)

What's your take on this? Do you believe England, a lifelong devoted Mormon, was a "goof"? I'm only asking for clarification.

I too am quite surprised that you would advocate blood atonement for "unrepentant homosexuals".

[_KimberlyAnn]

I have a very long memory, and it's usually pretty accurate. I'm fairly certain Gaz once advocated capital punishment for adultery. But, maybe it was Abman?

I remember reading it when I first came to this board and being appalled.

I wish the search function on this board worked properly. I'd find out.


KA

[_Angus McAwesome]

And no I am not gay. Sorry to crush your hopes Angus. And please take my picture off the top of your computer you printed off of my Zeppelin post in the jukebox. I would advise you to replace it with a nice photo of Jennifer Connelly. That would be a nice first step to your recovery.

So your big come back is esentially "nuh uh! You are!"? Clownshoes...

[_Gazelam]

Ray A,

Much thanks for focusing the discussion. I adocate blood atonement for unrepentant homosexuals. Yes

To my knowledge the calender guy is not gay.

I advocate it because if a member (One who knows the doctrine beforehand) chooses to be a homosexual and refuses to repent, they are in a sinful condition. To remain this way is to inflict further destruction and a future punishment upon their soul. Ending their mortal condition is to do them a favor in that it is ending their state of mortal probation. Obviously in the case of homosexuality they will be unable to act upon their sinful nature, and therefore they cannot continue to break the law of chastity. A law second only to murder.

The question you posed was "Are devoted Mormons who seek to counsel the brethren in matters of doctrine goofs?"

As you quoted in your post:

"The Lord's house is a house of order and those who hold the keys are appointed to proclaim the doctrines...."

The membership has no right whatsoever to council the Church leaders in matters of doctrine. If a General Authority declares a doctrine that I am not comfortable with, it is my responsibility to shift my viewpoint to the way he has stated the Lord feels about it.

[_asbestosman]

But, maybe it was Abman?

Why do you think I might say something like that?

I wish the search function on this board worked properly. I'd find out.

You could always use Google and then scope the search to MDB by searching for something like
site:http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss adultery capital