.

[Anonymous]

.

[_bcspace]

Do you have anything from a doctrinal work? Without such, I'd say that Blood Atonement is not a problem that you have with the LDS Church. Blood Atonement to an LDS person is the shed blood of Christ for our sins.

[Anonymous]

.

[_bcspace]

Ah, the classic cop-out. "its not in an official doctrinal work".

How is it a cop out when it's true that the JoD is not a doctrinal work?

Well actually it is. See D&C 132:26. Destroyed in the flesh means destroyed in the flesh.

How does this show a blood atonement other than the shedding of Christ's blood for our sins in LDS theology?

Now, many church leaders have elaborated on this theme more extensively in works that at one point in Mormon history were considered doctrinal (Journal of Discourses for example) and I have quoted several.

When was the JoD considered doctrinal by the Church?

The point is, it was taught. if it was taught so persistently, then it is common sense that it was practiced

Taught and practiced by whom?

These blood oaths are the only reason an otherwise rational individual could have committed the mountain meadows massacre in "good conscience". Despite who was to blame, if it wasn't for these teachings that heinous act likely would have never happened.

How do you know? Heinous acts are committed all over the world without relying on a "blood atonement" as you describe.

Even if blood atonement didn't exists,

A stunning admission.

that still doesn't explain away the penalties in the secret combination adopted from masonry.

What's to explain?

As the lyrics graphically illustrate, these death oaths are not good or christlike.

Are the lyrics from a doctrinal work of the Church?

[_moksha]

Utah used to offer death by firing squad, as a means of execution, to help penitent prisoners atone for their crime. This has been abandoned since it fit the cruel and unusual punishment description.

[Anonymous]

.

[_Danna]

Hey bcspace,
what is the purpose of all the extra-doctrinal yapping that goes on? Why is it preserved in church records? Is it not a principle of doctrine to follow the prophet whether he is right or wrong.

So, is LDS doctrine not 'to treat the words of the prophet as scripture?

And if not, then don't we have a closed canon that defies the principle of ongoing revelation in the restored church?

[Anonymous]

.

[_The Dude]

Do you have anything from a doctrinal work? Without such, I'd say that Blood Atonement is not a problem that you have with the LDS Church. Blood Atonement to an LDS person is the shed blood of Christ for our sins.

Who cares, BC. The lyrics are fnck-!ng awesome.

Plus, Ezias is right that your argument is a cop out.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I'm not a fan of Heavy Metal music, for the most part, but Dude is right. The lyrics are good, Ezias.

KA