My playlist about Brigham Young - http://www.youtube.com/user/isthechurchtrue#grid/user/00A93088BB6C40EA
The doctrine of Blood Atonement states that there are sins that the Atonement of Jesus Christ does not cover. Therefore the sinner himself must be sacrificed to receive forgiveness for their sins like the animal sacrifices made in the Old Testament. The sacrifice must include the shedding of the sinner's blood. For example, hanging is not sufficient because it does not shed the sinner's blood. Only modes of death that shed blood like gun shots, stabbing, decapitation, etc are sufficient. Brigham Young taught the doctrine of Blood Atonement while he was Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Brigham Young stated that if killing a sinner would save that sinner then it was just as much his duty to kill that sinner as it was to baptize that sinner. Furthermore Brigham Young stated that executing a sinner for their sins was what Jesus Christ meant when he said "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"
Mark 12:31
"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
Brigham Young uses the Old Testament Law as a basis for the doctrine of Blood Atonement and the Israelites wandering in the wilderness as an example of when God sacrificed people for their sins. Heber C. Kimball stated that Judas was killed as a sacrifice for his sins (breaking his covenant). "Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. It is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out. 'I will suffer my bowels to be taken out before I will forfeit the covenant I have made with Him and my brethren.' Do you understand me? Judas was like salt that had lost its saving principles − good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. It is just so with you men and women, if you do not honour your callings and cultivate the principles you have received. It is so with you, ye Elders of Israel, when you forfeit your covenants."
JD 6:126, Heber C. Kimball, December 13, 1857
The doctrine of Blood Atonement amounts to human sacrifice and is completely unChristian. Jesus Christ was the only sacrifice necessary for mankind to receive forgiveness for their sins.
Hebrews 10:10-14
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
In the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the law was completed and no more sacrifice of animals was needed.
Matthew 5:17
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Notice the immense difference between what Jesus Christ taught and what Brigham Young taught.
John 8:7-11
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Jesus Christ did not condemn the adulterous women or want her stoned to death. Brigham Young taught that she must have her blood shed to atone for her sins.
Loading...
14:14
Dan Savage On Book Of Mormon, Anti-Gay For Pay, Religion Forcing People To Be Closetedby SuchIsLifeVideos32,998 views
@isthechurchtrue It doesn't matter how many Prophets George Q was a councilor to. The J of D is still not doctrine. Keep beating your head against the wall, though, it that's what turns you on.
JediLDS 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue Keep trying, but you'll never get it right with that line of reasoning. The recognized "standard works" of the church are the Bible, BofM, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price--nothing else. That's why LDS refer to them as the "four standard works of the church"--not five or six, but FOUR. The JofD contains items that are definitely not doctrine--i.e. a court case, for example. Meanwhile, I live on the hope that some point in time, you anti-Mormon types will actually get it right.
JediLDS 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue I'm familiar with McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" which isn't official LDS doctrine, BTW. Good for study, or course, but was never and will never, be canonized--just as the JofD will never be canonized. And no, McConkie was not confused about what constitutes LDS doctrine and what doesn't. The only confusion is on the part of you anti-Mormonism types who apply your own false interpretation to LDS writings. And FYI..."famous" does not always equate to "correct". Nice try, though.
JediLDS 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue All you've succeeded in doing is to show your lack of knowledge of what constitutes LDS doctrine and what does not. "...canonized in the J of D"? For your information, the J of D--as a body of work--never was, and never will be official doctrine of the church. You labor under the same false assumptions that all anti-Mormons labor under: you think that just because some LDS authority has written or spoken something, that makes it doctrine. It's not me who is being dishonest here.
JediLDS 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue In truth most people dont have these books thay you have and you may use that to your advantage pointing out some parts that people may be offended too without any More of the text or pre text. we only may know the Bible,the book of Mormon, D&C, and the Parls of Great Price.Even a small versus or chapters can offened some one. its not fair to only show those. instead try to show so good parts about the book that you have shown us.
loops300 4 months ago
@JediLDS
"who presume to tell me that Mormons (me included) don't know our own doctrine."
You claimed that Blood Atonement was never doctrine of the LDS Church yet Bruce R. McConkie wrote a book called "Mormon Doctrine" in 1958 that explains the doctrine of Blood Atonement. Bruce R. McConkie was one of the 12 Apostles of the LDS Church & a famous scholar of its doctrine. If a member of the 12 Apostles is confused about what is and isn't doctrine then Mormons don't know their own doctrine.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@JediLDS
"Of course I'm aware of LDS doctrine, and I am honest about it, always"
You were already dishonest about Mormon doctrine when you said Blood Atonement was never doctrine of the LDS Church. Brigham Young taught it as true doctrine (watch the video), LDS believed it, it was practiced by Brigham Young, & canonized in the J of D. Recently, the LDS Church has denied the belief and practice. You simply wish to white wash Mormon history to eliminate the problems of your own Church History.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@... it was being practiced when Joseph Smith was still alive. I've read D&C 132. What's your point with it? Basically, it tells when the Lord allowed polygamy and when he didn't, among other things.
JediLDS 4 months ago
@... concept, but that's the way it works. A church has a right to determine what is doctrine and what and when it isn't. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to believe it--but it makes perfect sense to me. As for the " not permitted until the LDS went west" statement you claim Hinckley made, again, not true. What he said was "When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale." That does not mean that it was not practiced until then. Hinckley knew good and well that...
JediLDS 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue Of course I'm aware of LDS doctrine, and I am honest about it, always. You state that Hinckley was caught lying, which is not true. You anti-Mormonism types need to do some honest research. To wit: polygamy being "not doctrinal" and not permitted until LDS "went west". Polygamy is not doctrinal, not in today's times, anyway. It's only doctrinal when the Lord commands it, and when He says to stop the practice, it ceases to be doctrinal. I don't expect you to understand that...
JediLDS 4 months ago