Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Blood atonement was a practice in ... up until at least 1994 potential jurors in Utah have been questioned on their beliefs concerning the blood atonement prior to ...
Writer J. Aaron Sanders stated that the temple penalties were a form of blood atonement. [18]: 94, 99 Author Peter Levenda linked Smith's introduction of the Masonic blood oaths into the temple endowment as a step towards later threats of blood atonement for other perceived crimes in Utah territory. [20]
When Young was interviewed on the matter and asked if it was related to his beliefs regarding blood atonement, he replied, "I do, and I believe that Lee has not half atoned for his great crime." He said "we believe that execution should be done by the shedding of blood instead of by hanging," but only "according to the laws of the land". [ 24 ]
Lee was executed by firing squad at Mountain Meadows on March 23, 1877. Young believed that Lee's punishment was just but not a sufficient blood atonement, given the enormity of the crime, to allow Lee entrance into the celestial kingdom. [25] [26] Prior to his execution, Lee claimed that he was a scapegoat for others involved:
The sacrament of the Lord's supper, or partaking of bread and wine instituted by Jesus, is in remembrance of this covenant, in remembrance of his blood, or atonement for sins, and the resurrection of his body. [160] Latter-day Saints believe the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a God of covenants. [161]
Similar to honor killings as well as a form of human sacrifice, blood atonement is the belief that Jesus' atonement for humanity's sins does not apply to some sins, such as interracial sexual activity and marriage, because they are too serious. To atone for these sins, their perpetrators should be killed in a way that allows their blood to be ...
There are statements from church officials on blood atonement. This belief held that the blood of Jesus' Atonement could not remit certain serious sins, and that the only way a Mormon sinner could pay for committing such sins would be to have his own blood spilled on the ground as an atonement. This doctrine was never held by the church or ...
Various church leaders in the 19th century taught likewise, [53] [54] [55] but more recently church leaders have taught that the atonement of Jesus Christ is all-encompassing and that there is no sin so severe that it cannot be forgiven (with the exception of the "unpardonable sin" of denying the Holy Ghost).