Gaz advocates death by blood atonement for Chad Hardy?

[_Jersey Girl]

I asked a question previously in the thread and didn't get an answer. In this Blood Atonement bit, who does the killing?

[_guy sajer]

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.

There's a big difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. In the first case, adults sexually exploit and abuse minor children, who are not capable of giving informed consent. In the second case, consenting adults mutually agree to engage in sex.

How the hell are the two in any way comparable?

[_Ray A]

So Ray,

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

Jersey Girl

I'd say it's pure speculation (though it gives insight into his thinking and beliefs). From the official point of view of the Church, it has no legs, and this official view has been expressed (as above) since the late 19th century, as per the statement quoted above. It would make no sense to practice blood atonement in the Millennium, and barring an LDS Church/State, it won't happen. A Church/State won't happen either, as per D&C 135 (1835):

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

This of course is the ideal, but many would argue that pre-1896 the LDS Church did have a theocracy. Once they joined the Union, a theocracy was not possible, and it won't happen henceforth. So this discussion is all theoretical.

[_Jersey Girl]

All of those things pedophiles, etc, aren't sexual orientations.

And WTH is a "furrie"?

[_Jersey Girl]

All of those things pedophiles, etc, aren't sexual orientations.

And WTH is a "furrie"?

[_GoodK]

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.

I'm so used to the "extemist" Mormon's like Gaz I've already said everything I could say to him
here.

I'm tired of you idiots trying to high jack the government and set policy. You idiots just want to control people with your stupid fairy tales... shut up.

[_The Nehor]

All of those things pedophiles, etc, aren't sexual orientations.

And WTH is a "furrie"?

Don't ask, don't google it. YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!!!!!

[_asbestosman]

A Church/State won't happen either, as per D&C 135 (1835):

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

This of course is the ideal, but many would argue that pre-1896 the LDS Church did have a theocracy. Once they joined the Union, a theocracy was not possible, and it won't happen henceforth. So this discussion is all theoretical.

Awesome. I was about to quote D&C 135 as support against blood atonement and Gaz's extremism.

[_beastie]

It is part of LDS doctrine that some sins are beyond the power of Jesus' atonement.

D & C 132

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.
27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

These verses demonstrate that two types of infractions are beyond Jesus' atonement: if after having one's "calling and election has been made sure", which essentially guarantees exaltation, the individual commits any sin other than the blasphemy against the HG, then the individual will have to pay personally for that sin.

After having the calling and election made sure, if one commits blasphemy against the HG it is unforgivable, period.

This isn't the same thing as blood atonement, but perhaps it created the seed of the idea.

This is probably one reason that mainstream xtians have a hard time accepting Mormons as fellow Xtians, due to the fact that, in Mormonism, Christ's atonement does have limits.

[_Jersey Girl]

All of those things pedophiles, etc, aren't sexual orientations.

And WTH is a "furrie"?

Don't ask, don't google it. YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!!!!!

Yeah, too late. So he's talking about people who are attracted to Bambi.