Blood Oaths...

[_truth dancer]

Beastie brought up a good point on the MMM thread.

She mentions the difference between the blod oaths and the blood atonement and I have a few question surrounding these ideas.

Without going into the specifics of any temple rituals or ceremonies I would like to discuss the mindset of the early LDS.

It is my impression that idea of blood atonement was vibrantly alive and well in the early days of the church. While today it seems less emphasized it still seems clear some members believe in it. Basically there are some sins that are only atoned for by the sinners death, unlike other sins where Jesus took the sin upon himself.

I remember taking a class at BYU where a professor taught that the blood atonement was not doctrine. If I recall correctly he received some heat for this.

Anyone know what the current teaching is on this? What do faithful members believe? Is the blood atonement now considered just opinion of past prophets?

Secondly, while the temple ceremony has significantly changed over the last century, I don't know that anyone can overestimate the power that comes from people promising and covenanting to God to avenge the life of the prophet. Again, without going into the specifics, just reading what occurred in the temple in those days gives me the chills.

The point is, it seems to me (I'm open to learning) that there was a definite mindset in the early days of the church that killing was appropriate in some cases... to avenge the life of Joseph Smith for one and as a necessary punishment for some sins.

When did it become inappropriate to avenge the life of Joseph Smith? Did the church just change the temple rituals by removing certain oaths without a mention as they do today or was there a teaching that eliminated this idea?

And, what is the current LDS stance on the blood atonement?

td

[_beastie]

Well, if the believers on this board are any indication, it appears that LDS believe that blood atonement will be instituted one day under the millennial theocracy.

I think the bit about avenging the blood of the prophets just kind of faded from memory, like the other blood oaths that were more recently removed from the temple. There are actually younger LDS today who have never heard of those blood oaths and don't believe anything like that ever took place in the temple. And since one isn't allowed to discuss temple issues, how will they ever know differently?

[_TAK]

As I understand the Vengeance oath in the temple are not mentioned by Turley and Co in the new book. A significant omission I would think.

Which raises an interesting question.. When the latest changes in the temple ceremony occured and the blood oaths that were practiced up until a few years ago were removed, I understood the oath and penalties and such are still valid - just not performed. Is that correct?

So.. Is the Oath of Vengeance still valid even though it is not performed?

[_Nevo]

Secondly, while the temple ceremony has significantly changed over the last century, I don't know that anyone can overestimate the power that comes from people promising and covenanting to God to avenge the life of the prophet.

It's a common misconception that nineteenth-century Mormons took an "oath of vengeance." They didn't. They covenanted to pray for God to avenge the blood of the prophets (compare Rev. 6:9-10).

[_harmony]

I'm sure it's probably impossible to know, but what percentage of the population of Utah/So Utah at that time was temple endowed?

Had there been a huge push to get all members endowed? Was the TRI the same as it is now?

[_TAK]

Secondly, while the temple ceremony has significantly changed over the last century, I don't know that anyone can overestimate the power that comes from people promising and covenanting to God to avenge the life of the prophet.

It's a common misconception that nineteenth-century Mormons took an "oath of vengeance." They didn't. They covenanted to pray for God to avenge the blood of the prophets (compare Rev. 6:9-10).

all the so called oaths use the word covenant..

[_truth dancer]

I just reviewed the temple ritual and covenants from the early days and it seems that those people who went through the temple prior to 1927 were under covenant to teach the blood oath to the children, their children's children and even to the third and fourth generation.

Does this not mean that those people who have ancestors who went through the temple prior to 1927 have been taught this?

Is this one of those teachings that are still taught in secret? Are people still praying that God will avenge the blood of Joseph Smith?

~dancer~

[_Sethbag]

When the latest changes in the temple ceremony occured and the blood oaths that were practiced up until a few years ago were removed, I understood the oath and penalties and such are still valid - just not performed. Is that correct?

You are only endowed once. After that, every time you go through the temple you're going through for someone else, not yourself.

I went through in 1988, and I performed the penalties as part of my bogus covenants. Since that one time for myself was all I could ever expect to experience for myself, and all subsequent endowments were for others, I must assume that, in the context of LDS belief, my endowment is still valid exactly as I experienced it. That is, penalties and all. No part of the endowment changes, which I also experienced in doing sessions for others, purported to be retroactive and change endowments that had already been done before.

[_TAK]

So when someone takes out their endowment or does one for someone else is the Vengence Oath still a covenant like the the other oaths?

You are only endowed once. After that, every time you go through the temple you're going through for someone else, not yourself.

I went through in 1988, and I performed the penalties as part of my bogus covenants. Since that one time for myself was all I could ever expect to experience for myself, and all subsequent endowments were for others, I must assume that, in the context of LDS belief, my endowment is still valid exactly as I experienced it. That is, penalties and all. No part of the endowment changes, which I also experienced in doing sessions for others, purported to be retroactive and change endowments that had already been done before.

[_Sethbag]

No blood oaths or vengeance oaths are currently taken in the temple.