Here's the problem. This is a derailment of the thread, but I will try to explain why I didn't want to pursue this further. I gave you the doctrinal response to whether or not a person can be forgiven of murder. I cited Scripture. You suggested that those who commit murder are 'sons of perdition' as they are the only ones who are said to be 'cast into outer darkness'. You were describing 'sons of perdition' and that's a very specific type of individual and type of sin. Then another person contradicted my explanation, because he follows a fundamentalist belief of some kind, which is not the mainstream church.tdj wrote: ↑July 30th, 2020, 2:57 pmI just asked that question in relation to Chad and lori and the dead kids. It's obvious that they are guilty of shedding innocent blood even if they didn't physically do the deed. It was planned out, which is the same thing, and I'm just curious on whether or not according to doctrine, if chad and lori are going to be cast into outer darkness?jmack wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2020, 12:48 pmThis thread on Chad Daybell/Lori Vallow is a topic I am interested in and choose to follow on this forum. This derailment is a topic I have no interest arguing. I tried to answer tdj's question, but that's all.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2020, 9:45 amWhen was blood atonement condemned? Is the blood atonement of Christ also a "non doctrine"? Not sure I've ever heard any church authority condemn blood atonement in it's true form as it is perfectly scriptural and the basis of our own salvation. Many people have an inaccurate understanding of blood atonement and that may be preached against. But the real thing is legit.jmack wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2020, 8:09 am my responses
You know the church doesn't support blood atonement, even though some in decades past put it forward. And this is a perfect example of the danger and confusion that fundamentalists cause. Don't use non doctrines, beliefs that have been condemned even, to try to make your case. We're not fundementalists, the church has living prophets and continuing revelation. .please don't mislead others.
As for the example of the Lamanites who had shed innocent blood, you are forgetting that one must first receive the new and everlasting covenant before shedding the innocent blood to commit the unpardonable sin. The Lamanites had shed blood (who knows how much of it was innocent blood) before being converted, so forgiveness is still an option without losing their own blood. They had not yet become the salt of the earth, so there was no savor to be lost and no treading under foot to be deserved. (I'm sure you can find the scripture references for that.)
Now, whom do you rail against? Me, whom you suppose to be a fundamentalist (in the pejorative sense, obviously), or your own prophet? Read on...
Even you claim that murder cannot be fully forgiven in this life. Upon what scripture do you base that correct understanding? If you do your research you will see that your appraisal of murder is built upon the artifact of the beliefs you claim to reject. Don't believe it? Then please explain the scriptural or theological basis for your understanding that murder cannot be fully forgiven in this life. You are holding to the sayings of a few more recent general authority statements not realizing that their understanding is from these same quotes and scriptures I have provided.
- "Peter preached repentance and baptism for the remission of sins to the Jews who had been led to acts of violence and blood by their leaders; but to the rulers he said, 'I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.' 'Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing (redemption) shall come from the presence of the Lord, and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you,' &c. The time of redemption here had reference to the time when Christ should come; then, and not till then, would their sins be blotted out. Why? Because they were murderers, and no murderer hath eternal life. Even David must wait for those times of refreshing, before he can come forth and his sins be blotted out. For Peter, speaking of him says, 'David hath not yet ascended into heaven, for his sepulcher is with us to this day.' His remains were then in the tomb. Now, we read that many bodies of the Saints arose at Christ’s resurrection, probably all the Saints, but it seems that David did not. Why? Because he had been a murderer. If the ministers of religion had a proper understanding of the doctrine of eternal judgment, they would not be found attending the man who forfeited his life to the injured laws of his country, by shedding innocent blood; for such characters cannot be forgiven, until they have paid the last farthing. The prayers of all the ministers in the world can never close the gates of hell against a murderer" (Joseph Smith, Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 188 – 189, emphasis added).
Read carefully again what I've written and what Joseph Smith has said on the matter and you'll see there's no false doctrine in it, in fact he and I have the scriptures as our guide in this matter. Your scriptural example of the Lamanites was of a people who had not yet received the new and everlasting covenant. The Book of Mormon also talks about one of the most righteous men who ever lived, Captain Moroni, who shed the non-innocent blood of a whole slew of murderous king men yet did no sin. This is a very Biblical righteousness and it is our doctrine that there is a difference between murder and killing—or do you claim that the church disavows that too?
For further reading I suggest Joseph F. Smith's pamphlet, "Blood Atonement and the Origins of Polygamy." It's a great resource, unless, of course, you consider it misleading to have an understanding of our fundamentals...
My suggestion is that you ask your Bishop. If you really want to know the doctrine on this, I seriously would suggest that you be careful of taking the statements of some posters on this forum since we don't know where they're coming from (and there are so many here who have non orthodox/fundamentalist views on even the most basic teachings), and in that vein, don't even take my word for it. Ask your Bishop and that should clear up your questions on this.
I hope this doesn't derail, sorry all.
