Gaz advocates death by blood atonement for Chad Hardy?

[_Gazelam]

From the days of Joseph Smith to the present, wicked and evilly-disposed persons have fabricated false and slanderous stories to the effect that the Church, in the early days of this dispensation, engaged in a practice of blood atonement where-under the blood of apostates and others was shed by the Church as an atonement for their sins. These claims are false and were known by their originators to be false. There is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurance whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught.


There are, however, in the sermons of some of the early church leaders some statements about the true doctrine of blood atonement and of its practice in past dispensations, for instance, in the days of Moses. By taking one sentance on one page and another from a suceeding page and even by taking a part of a sentance on one page and a part of another found several pages away - all wholly torn from context - dishonest persons have attempted to make it appear that Brigham Young and others taught things just the opposite of what they really believed and taught.


Raising the curtain of truth on this false nd slanderous bluster of enemies of the Church who have thus wilfully chosen to fight the truth with outright lies of the basest sort, the true doctrine of blood atonement is simply this:


1. Jesus Christ worked out the infinate and eternal atonement by the shedding of his own blood. He came into the world for the purpose of dying on the cross for the sins of the world. By virtue of that atoning sacrifice immortality came as a free gift to all men, and all who would believe and obey his laws would in addition be cleansed from sin through his blood. (Mosiah 3:16-19; 3 Ne. 27:19-21; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:9-10)


2. But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capitol punishment. Thus also, if a person has so progressed in rightiousness that his calling and election has been made sure, if he has come to that position where he knows "by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood" that he is sealed up unto eternal life (D&C 131:5), then if he gains forgiveness for certain grievous sins, he must "be destroyed in the flesh," and "delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God." (D&C 132:19-27)


President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins - [i]according to his light and knowledge[/i' - that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone - so far as in his power lies - for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

.... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the powr of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are commited, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, pp.133-138.)


This Doctrine can only be practiced in its fulness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands. It was, for instance, practiced in the days of Moses, but it was not and could not be practiced in this dispensation, except that persons who understood its provisions could and did use their influence to get a form of capitol punishment written into the laws of the various states of the union so that the blood of murderers could be shed.


Mormon Doctrine, pp. 92-93

[_Ray A]

According to John D. Lee, in his Confessions:

Rosmos Anderson was a Danish man who had come to Utah...He had married a widow lady...and she had a daughter that was fully grown at the time of the reformation...

At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery, believing when they did so that Brigham Young would allow them to marry when he learned the facts. Their confession being full, they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter...the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections, but asked for half a day to prepare for death. His request was granted. His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried, and was informed that he was to be killed for his sins, she being directed to tell those who should enquire after her husband that he had gone to California.

Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey the Council. Anderson got up, dressed himself, bid his family good-bye, and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the "Almighty God." They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave. As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash, when she was again instructed to say that her husband was in California .... The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act.

[_Ray A]

Mormon Doctrine, pp. 92-93

Mc Conkie wasn't a historian, Gaz. Some of the blood atonement killings are documented on Wiki, but you'll need to check hard copy sources like Quinn's Extensions of Power, for more detail.

[_The Nehor]

Should we assume that Gaz would wish to subject
all Furries who where Mormon to Blood Atonement
unless they recanted?

I can only assume you've never met any.........whether they were Mormon or not is irrelevant. They need to be wiped out before they destroy us psychologically, emotionally, and totally.

[_moksha]

Should we assume that Gaz would wish to subject
all Furries who where Mormon to Blood Atonement
unless they recanted?

I can only assume you've never met any.........whether they were Mormon or not is irrelevant. They need to be wiped out before they destroy us psychologically, emotionally, and totally.

As Gaz quoted from Joseph Fielding Smith:

This Doctrine can only be practiced in its fulness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands.

So till that time, the Furries can thrive without fear of Blood Atonement.


by the way, is this Blood Atonement nonsense still really on the books? My thinking this that enlightened Mormons in the 20th and 21st Centuries have probably abandoned the notion that they have to kill those they think are sinners for their own sake. I am hoping this is just a remnant of Old West shoot 'em up thinking that reasonable Mormons now regret.

[_Ray A]

by the way, is this Blood Atonement nonsense still really on the books? My thinking this that enlightened Mormons in the 20th and 21st Centuries have probably abandoned the notion that they have to kill those they think are sinners for their own sake. I am hoping this is just a remnant of Old West shoot 'em up thinking that reasonable Mormons now regret.

The Church principles were outlined in 1835, Mok, that no religion has the right to inflict physical punishment upon dissidents, which includes capital punishment. But as all complex histories go, Brigham Young and others did not adhere to the written principles. His belief in blood atonement is about on the same par as his belief in Adam/God.

[Guest]

.... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the powr of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are commited, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, pp.133-138.)

...well done Gaz. You've proven your ability to use your CTRL+C and CTRL+V keys. Congratulations. A trained monkey like you should be proud of yourself.

...now, not only will you need to find any kind of official church statement that claims that a homosexual that is - at a point in time - unrepentant of their homosexuality is beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. (i.e. they can't choose to then repent at a later time), you'll have to somehow reconcile this with the fact that you - yourself - said the homosexual has to choose to remain unrepentant! Which makes zero sense in relation to the idea of Blood Atonement...

...I'm not talking about murder
...I'm not talking about denying the HG.
...I'm not talking about some special case, specific covenants to avoid adultery made back in the 19th century that aren't considered 'unforgivable' today in LDS theology.

...I'm talking about plain old homosexuality.

Not even BY's rantings can help you here. (And that's saying something...!)

If you get tired of all the google-ing, go swing on a tyre for a while. Or have a banana...
Meanwhile, keep dreaming of killing those fags - whilst singing 'Love One Another' at sacrament meeting...

The irony here is you think homosexuals are the ones with a screw loose!

Also, as far as BY is concerned regarding sins that were deserving of blood atonement, I believe that covenant breaking was mentioned. Since homosexuality would fall under "covenant breaking", I think that is where Gaz is getting this basis from.

On this basis, Gaz should be ranting and raving on how most of us on this forum should be dead. Day in, day out.
As was Hally's - very elequantly put - point.

I made covenants in the temple. I break them routinely.

Gaz just has a hard-on for killing homosexuals. The End. All the rest is ridiculous attempts at ad-hoc justification - based on even more ridiculous religious principles - for such a barbaric, monstrous stance.

[_Hally McIlrath]

Gaz just has a hard-on for killing homosexuals. The End. All the rest is ad-hoc justification for such a barbaric, monstrous stance.

Yeah, 'zackly. You said it.

Come on, Gaz. You've got some 'splaining to do. It's really nice that you can cut, and paste, and everything, but...it's time you admit that you have no doctrinal basis for enacting blood atonement upon homosexuals specifically without ALSO enacting it upon liars, those who steal, those who "break covenants," those who are adulterers, blah blah blah blah blah. You have a personal prejudice that has attained the obsessive, disturbing level of murder in your own mind, and you would like very much the backing of scripture for it and God's blessings upon it. But you can't give a pig a purse and call her a lady, Gaz. She still won't hold her fork properly at the table, even if you do.

And do you REALLY believe THIS?:

There are, however, in the sermons of some of the early church leaders some statements about the true doctrine of blood atonement and of its practice in past dispensations, for instance, in the days of Moses. By taking one sentance on one page and another from a suceeding page and even by taking a part of a sentance on one page and a part of another found several pages away - all wholly torn from context - dishonest persons have attempted to make it appear that Brigham Young and others taught things just the opposite of what they really believed and taught.

You gave VERY specific instructions on HOW blood atonement was supposed to be carried out. How did you get that information, Gaz? Did you "take one sentance [sic] on one page and another from a suceeding [sic]" page? Is that how you learned about blood atonement? By taking the information out of context? Or did you in fact have very specific and clear ideas about where it came from, on whom it was to be performed, and when it was to be carried out? You can't have it both ways, Gaz. Either you have "antis" taking it out of context, or you have clear instructions from religious leaders. Is McConkie telling the truth? Is blood atonement just an "anti" lie, when you yourself can tell us a person must be butchered like an animal over a freshly-dug grave? Where did you get that information, Gaz? Should you be reading "anti" lies to get your religious education? Or is McConkie himself not telling the truth?

Remember, liars qualify for blood atonement also. I await your answer.

[_OMWO2]

Sadly, this is the sort of stuff that Gaz allegedly endorses. I truly hope Gaz is simply sensationalizing his position to draw attention and doesn't really subscribe to "blood atonement" in a real sense.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_ ... h_shooting

[_Gazelam]

Renegade,

...well done Gaz. You've proven your ability to use your CTRL+C and CTRL+V keys. Congratulations. A trained monkey like you should be proud of yourself.

If you know where I can cut and paste entries from Mormon Doctrine you'll be my new hero. I had to squint and read in the dim light of my computer screen and type all that out.

...now, not only will you need to find any kind of official church statement that claims that a homosexual that is - at a point in time - unrepentant of their homosexuality is beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. (i.e. they can't choose to then repent at a later time), you'll have to somehow reconcile this with the fact that you - yourself - said the homosexual has to choose to remain unrepentant! Which makes zero sense in relation to the idea of Blood Atonement...

All mankind will be saved, yes. Except those who sin against the Holy Ghost. The question is can they all receive exaltation and dwell in the presence of Christ and the Father. This will not happen unless they have been baptised and received the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

2 Nephi 31

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

An unclean adulterer such as a homosexual has set aside all belief in Christ in favor of chasing after the most base and vile of human desires. They will have no claim on the covenants they have made with Christ. All blessing that are promised by God in regards to salvation and exaltation come as principles with a promise. If they do not adhere to these principles they have no promise. On the contrary, they are cursed and damned by their own breaking of the oaths they have taken.

Alma 24

30 And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.

Matt. 5: 13
13 ¶ Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men