Thursday, July 27, 2006

Blood Atonement

The FLDS under Warren Jeffs without doubt believe in the doctrine of blood atonement. As do a majority of other Mormon fundamentalist groups.
Brigham Young President of the LDS Church set this doctrine into effect some 200 years ago. It was his inspired opinion that there were sins committed by people of such severity that repentance through the atonement on the cross was not enough to free that individual from the sins that they committed. And that it was an act of sincere concern and love for their well being in the next life, if their blood was spilt ( killed with blood spilt) in order to pay the price for their sins. Some what perplexing how this would work in an imperfect world with leaders like WJ... This is a very, very dangerous doctrine. One can only imagine what might happen when trying to live this doctrine. Or maybe they already have been living it???

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Example: Ervil LeBaron
: Lafferty Brothers

Check out the stories about these two groups at the Court Tv Crime Library


Back in the Brigham Young days wasn't one nicknamed the Avenging Angel?

Anonymous said...

My !@#$%^&*(), fundy, are you a supporter of such diabolical doctrine? Vigilantee's often hung people without trials. Is horse theft a capital crime? Maybe some would argue yes if it deprives a man of a livelihood. Vigilantee-ism is a forerunner to anarchy. I will take the modern system any day over some pious person deciding they have the right to flog my son because they think he might of maybe done some wrong.

Albrock said...

I've been reading this blog for a while and, eventhough it gives lots of interesting information about the practice, I still don't know if yall do have a problem - or not - with polygamy. Frankly, I have a live and let live philosophy, but I do understand that if child abuse is going on, then the gov´t should step in. Bottom line is, do yall believe that what the folks in Centennial Park are doing is wrong, immoral and should remain illegal?

Anonymous said...

http://www.custercountynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16685245&BRD=2217&PAG=461&dept_id=461867&rfi=6

Anonymous said...

John D Lee's words that you quote are as credible as Thomas B Marshe's were late 1838. HE WAS AN APOSTATE! (There was no secret council of fifty)
That last quote from Brigham Young has no reference, where is it?

Anonymous said...

Well, Fundy

Rulon Jeffs included a chapter on Blood Atonement in his Purity of Marriage book.


Why? Because Rulon believed in it.

Rulon rails about adultery, adultery and more adultery and murder. These sins demand blood atonement to save these poor souls.

Law enforcement should be concern, more than they are.

It is suicide in the disguise of atonement.

Anonymous said...

Fundy said
While I believe that there are indeed sins for which one cannot gain forgivness from the atonement on the cross the rest of this doctrine certainly is perplexing.

Only one sin Fundy.....turning down the Holy Spirit AKA Jesus-GOD.

Anonymous said...

Saying someone is an apostate so their words can't be trusted is like saying a wife that gets disgusted with her cheating husband is an apostate and can't be trusted (Note to fundy--Emma Smith). No social organization likes inner working exposed, and whenever anyone tries to do it, they are branded as apostate to keep the others in line. I believe John D. Lee and Thomas B. Marsh knew about the council of fifty. I believe that it's purpose was indeed to take over the government. I believe they did indeed take oaths.

ATAR_i said...

Yes, it would be physically impossible to be 'faithful FLDS' and have something negative to say about FLDS.

The moment you said something - you would be considered an apostate, and thus, have no credibility.

If you said nothing, but still thought it, you would be faithful, but no one would know the negative things you feel.

It's actually a marvelous way to allow people to compartmentalize things so that they can ignore them.

ATAR_i said...

Poor poor fundy, can't stand people changing the subject - awwww.

Of course Emma is a traitor - she left her cheatin husband (jo), if she had stayed with the cheatin husband, she would have been faithful.

Ewww I'm so scared when you say the words 'burn in hell'.

You sound like the church lady (by the way she only made people laugh, she didn't scare them).

muggsey said...

If the individuals sin is so great that blood atonement is required then you are completely discounting the purposeful, planned, and completed atonement for the sins of man by Jesus Christ on the Cross. He became SIN. SIN DIED. The souls of the Old Testament Saints arose from the dead and went into the presence of the LIVING GOD. Th price was paid, once fol all.

Blood atonement, as suggested in Mormon doctrine is nothing but premeditated murder, or assisted suicide, both of which are illegal and totally unnecessary for the atonement of sin. JESUS PAID IT ALL.

feralfem said...

Anon 7/31/2006 10:06 PM said:
Rulon Jeffs included a chapter on Blood Atonement in his Purity of Marriage book.

Could/would you (or anyone) give the publication date of that book?

The information would help me with a theory/timeline I'm developing about Rulon/Warren.

Anonymous said...

Well Fundy, you, OTS and Warren are going to be so disappointed.

If Emma Smith believed Jesus was her only Savior, and she asked for forgiveness of her sins, she will see the only true heaven. Pretty simple.

Too simple for may.

God will look at Jesus (God) blood sacrifice and will not see Emma's sins. Pretty simple.

Anonymous said...

Only one sin Fundy.....turning down the Holy Spirit AKA Jesus-GOD.

I should clarify.

The sin of turning down the Holy Spirit AKA Jesus-God will put your soul in the burning pit reserved for Satan AKA Lucifer and his fallen angels.

God will forgive every sin under the sun, but denial of Jesus, His GIFT OF BLOOD SACRIFICE.

God forgives adulters and murderers, He just does not FORGIVE PUTTING DOWN His GIFT.

No temple, no prophet, no Bible, no preacher, no BOM, NO WORKS, no tithe and no baptism of living or dead will get a man or woman into heaven and make us a child of God.

I guess now we don't agree.

ATAR_i said...

Yes, we definately don't agree.

And your theology doesn't agree with the Bible either.

I don't know if the 'dis above is worse than not believing at all - wow.

Anonymous said...

I would rather invite an atheist in my house than one who feels that Emma should be blood atoned for disagreeing with a cheating husband. I don't agree with FLDS shunning, but I certainly would never allow Fundy in my house unless he promises to not teach blood atonement or try to convert me to his view of things.

muggsey said...

With the 'balance' of his mind being so strange, I don't think I'd allow him into my house for any reason. The guy is 7/8 a bubble off level.

ATAR_i said...

I'm fairly certain jo made a covenant when he married emma to keep himself only unto her.


He broke his first.

ATAR_i said...

I think he's unintentionally making us aware of his "confused and diverse state".

muggsey said...

Fundy

I strongly suspect that "Blood Atonement" as believed by FLDS, was preached from the pulpit only after it was revealed to the preacher. The revealee certainly was good buds with the revealer, Satan.

muggsey said...

Christ does not "HELP THEM ATONE"!
Christ 'IS' ATONEMENT.

BUT NOW THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD WITHOUT THE LAW IS MANIFESTED, BEING WITNESSED BY THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS; EVEN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD WHICH IS BY FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST UNTO ALL AND UPON ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE: FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE: FOR ALL HAVE SINNED, AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD; BEING JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE THROUGH THE REDEMPTION THAT IS IN CHRIST JESUS: WHOM GOD HATH SET FORTH TO BE A PROPITPIATION THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BOOOD, TO DECLARE HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS THAT ARE PAST, THROUGH THE FORBEARANCE OF GOD; TO DECLARE, I SAY, AT THIS TIME RIGHTEOUSNESS: THAT HE MIGHT BE JUST, AND THE JUSTIFIER OF HIM WHICH BELIEVETH IN JESUS. WHERE IS BOASTING THEN? IT IS EXCLUDED. BY WHAT LAW? OF WORKS? NAY: BUT BY THE LAW OF FAITH. THEREFORE WE CONCLUDE THAT A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. IS HE THE GOD OF THE JEWS ONLY? IS HE NOT ALSO OF THE GENTILES? YES OF THE GENTILES ALSO: SEEING IT IS ONE GOD, WHICH SHALL JUSTIFY THE CIRCUMISION BY FAITH, AND UNCIRCUMCISION THROUGH FAITH. DO WE THEN MAKE VOID THE LAW THROUGH FAITH? GOD FORBID: YEA, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW. ROMANS 3:21-31 KJV

muggsey said...

Mistake: Not one MAN at a time, but instead ONE LORD for ALL time as redemption for ALL those who believe and trust in HIS HOLY NAME.

muggsey said...

If I desired to follow a man, surely I could find one of greater wisdom and compassion than Warren Jeffs. I only see confusion and chaos coming from his leadership. Beside that, where is your leader when you need leadership and guidance? He's off hiding or being hidden, on the run to avoid being aprehended.

On one hand you praise Joseph Smith for having surrendered himself to authorities in Illinois and praise Jeffs for being on the run. Where is continuity?

muggsey said...

I think street deserves a new by-line: out-of-context!

Anonymous said...

who cares? where is god's one true represenitive now? in prison. Your mind is a powerful thing that can justify anything you do.