FLDS (real life) "Blood Atonement"

[JJ77]

I was curious about the title of this weeks episode , so i did a quick google. Here's some of what I came up with:

Blood atonement is a FLDS doctrine that the blood of the sinner must be spilled to atone for the sins of that sinner. The only chance for salvation for the sinner is through the spilling of that person's blood.

From my best understanding of it - the doctrine was originally meant to encourage those who had comitted certain sins to shed their own blood as a self sacrifice before god to atone for those sins.
Then later was interpreted to mean the sinner's blood being spilled (by someone other than themselves) was an act of mercy - as the sinner otherwise would not make it to heaven.

Basically saying - if you comitted "X" sin then you're only chance at salvation is to off yourself? Or if your friend, brother, etc committs "X" sin you must shed his blood (murder) him in order to save his soul ? If I'm understanding this right - wow absolutely INSANE!

not that it would factor in much (in my mind) but does anyone know what "sins" would be considered so greivous as to warrant blood atonement in the flds?
nothing i've read has specifically sited anything, except (vaguely) murder.

[rhinestone_cowgirl]

Hi

From reading various books about those who have been part of various fundamentalist sects, I've heard of it also being cited for adultery or 'blasphemy' (in this case blasphemy actually seems to mean disparaging the leaders of the sect or leaving). The doctrine may sound crazy, but it seems to many religious people from various religions that this is the purpose of the death penalty (and in some countries this is used for various offences from treason to drug trafficking, not just murder) to basically absolve the person of their sins. A lot of societies have this in the form of honour killings as well (and in those societies you'll find those of all religions participate in this abhorrent practice); so its not unique to the mormon faith. The thing that is alarming and unusual with this FLDS doctrine of 'blood atonement' is that it encourages individual, vigilante action without there having had been any type of legal trial to determine the person's guilt.

Sophie

[zoar]

the State of Utah used to give those sentenced to be executed an option to be put to death by firing squad. This had it's origins from the doctrine of Blood Atonement. Brigham Young although he preached the doctrine did say that only the State had the authority to take life. Sins that I am aware of that would call for Blood Atonement are murder, adultery and homosexuality which used to be called the sin against nature.

[dsc6]

I know that the Temple ceremony used to have portions referring to Blood Atonement, I think for anyone whe divulged the secrets of that ceremony. I also think that that portion was taken out of the Temple ceremony.

[withay]

Feb 21, 2010 22:44:37 GMT -5 dsc6 said:

I know that the Temple ceremony used to have portions referring to Blood Atonement, I think for anyone whe divulged the secrets of that ceremony. I also think that that portion was taken out of the Temple ceremony.

That portion of the Temple ceremony and some of the marks on the garments are said to strongly resemble masonic ceremonies.

[zoar]

The oaths do not call for the killing of the person that divulged the secrets. When taking the oaths the person vowed that they would never divulge the tokens, instead they would give their lives before they would make them known. It really does not make sense to keep that part since anyone can go online and find the complete ceremony. So keeping the oath is rather a moot point now.

[duets]

Feb 24, 2010 14:24:12 GMT -5 duets said:

That portion of the Temple ceremony and some of the marks on the garments are said to strongly resemble masonic ceremonies.[/quote][/i]

There is some correlation w/Smith & the Mason's. I googled & found this article.

www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/joseph_smith/masonry.html

"With the acquiescence of the Prophet, members of the Church already Masons petitioned the Grand Master of Illinois for permission to set up a lodge in Nauvoo. In answer they were granted permission, in October, 1841, to hold lodge meetings; but it was March 15, 1842, before authority was given to set up a lodge in Nauvoo and to induct new members. Joseph Smith became a member. At the time of the lodge organization, Joseph Smith received some of the degrees in Masonry. He was never an active Mason. His other work consumed his time and energy. His history shows that he was extremely busy at this time with a multitude of Church problems. Lodge matters would have to be left in other hands."

[/quote]

[zoar]

Feb 22, 2010 5:04:03 GMT -5 withay said:

Feb 21, 2010 22:44:37 GMT -5 dsc6 said:

I know that the Temple ceremony used to have portions referring to Blood Atonement, I think for anyone whe divulged the secrets of that ceremony. I also think that that portion was taken out of the Temple ceremony.

That portion of the Temple ceremony and some of the marks on the garments are said to strongly resemble masonic ceremonies.

withay,

This is part of a revelation dated June 22 1834 which is found in the doctrine and covenants:

“Verily I say unto you, it is expedient in me that the first elders of my church should receive their endowment from on high in my house, which I have commanded to be built unto my name in the land of Kirtland.”

The Kirtland temple was dedicated in 1836. That is 5 years earlier than when Joseph became a Mason. There is no possible way Smith incorporated Masonic rituals into the temple ceremony. He was not even a Mason when the temple was dedicated.

There is a relationship to Masonry and Solomon’s Temple. I found this on wikipedia

“Freemasonry uses the metaphors of operative stonemasons' tools and implements, against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple, to convey what has been described by both Masons and critics as "a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.”

Again this is something Joseph would have had no knowledge of until 1842!

[JJ77]

The Kirtland temple was dedicated in 1836. That is 5 years earlier than when Joseph became a Mason. There is no possible way Smith incorporated Masonic rituals into the temple ceremony. He was not even a Mason when the temple was dedicated.

I have no idea how accurate any of this is, but just for argument's sake (lol I was intrigued and googled again )
check out this link.

www.lds-temple.org/index.php?page=kirkland

According to this account you are BOTH correct... to a point.
"The purpose of this article is to point out that the LDS "endowment" conducted in the Kirtland Temple was significantly different than the "endowment" conducted in the Nauvoo Temple."


Basically says that the ceremony in kirtland had nothing to do with and did not resemble masonic ceremony. However, that changed at nauvoo after smith attended a masonic ceremony and borrowed from / was inspired by it.