LDS Freedom Forum

Is there a contradiction between this:
Alma 35:11-12
Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is ajust, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered;

"in some instances many men and almost whole nations were sacrificed or put to death because of their sins and wickedness. This was the only way the could be saved at all." Brigham Young 5, feb 1852

&

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7000 ... ement.html
"However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I couldn't find that statement on LDS.org or the Church newsroom website... seems to have originated from Deseret News, and with nothing identifying who made the statement.

Anyways...

Could the difference, or seeming contradiction between those statements, be related to Justice vs Mercy?

To give more context, the statement said

"so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people."

Justice demands the life of the person who murdered another (law of justice and restoration).

Mercy provides a way for forgiveness of the sinner. The repentance process I was taught is that in order for the atonement to take effect in your life, in other words to be shown mercy and receive forgiveness, you must also do what is in your power to satisfy the demands of justice... but we still fall short, which is where mercy through Christ's atonement comes in.

interesting new avatar, what is it?

Back to the question:

Part of the repentance process is making restitution for the wrong you have done, and then the blood of Christ makes up the difference. In some circumstances though, as Alma points out, the only way to do that is through the blood of the person who committed the wrong.

So I do not consider the two mutually exclusive as the press release seems to imply. It seems that both are necessary according to scripture and the words of modern Prophets.

Mahonri wrote:interesting new avatar, what is it?

It's an illustration of Alma's Conversion, by Kris Cooper

Mahonri wrote:Part of the repentance process is making restitution for the wrong you have done, and then the blood of Christ makes up the difference. In some circumstances though, as Alma points out, the only way to do that is through the blood of the person who committed the wrong.

So I do not consider the two mutually exclusive as the press release seems to imply. It seems that both are necessary according to scripture and the words of modern Prophets.

What is the context of the release of this statement? "so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of...".. Does it maybe have to do with the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner?

I don't necessarily see a contradiction - Maybe what the statement is saying is... it's not possible to atone for yourself, or receive mercy/forgiveness based solely on your own restitution, but only in conjunction with the saving grace of Christ's atonement... that we can't "pay for our own sins" but we are required to go through the necessary steps of restitution in order for the atonement to take effect in our lives.

Yes, it was in context of the Ronnie Lee case. But who was saying it is a doctrine of the Church (the tone of the article was that some were making that case) that one could fully atone for ones sins? The statement, claiming to come from the Church, claimed that early Church leaders taught that. "blood atonement" does not claim that.