UNC: Husband Of Missing Utah Woman Did Not Apply To Medical School.

WRAL.com ^ | 7/21/04 | Amanda Lamb

[HarryDunne]

Kill her because she wanted to leave the Church? Mormons are required to live by the laws of the land. Murder is, therefore, not an option, as it is against the law.

"it would be his duty as a loving husband to kill her (in the ritual way that is practiced in the Mormon temples), so that her blood "gets her to heaven". I wonder if anybody has suggested this theory? I wonder if anybody has suggested this theory?"

No, because anybody who knows anything about Mormonism knows it's a ridiculous theory, based entirely in rumor and falsehood. Blood atonement (except the blood atonement of Christ) is not Church doctrine and would therefore not be a motivation for Mark to kill his wife.

If you're trying to determine this man's religious-based motivations for allegedly killing his wife, you may want to consider learning more about the Church either at the Church's main website or their other site. As you learn more about the LDS Church, you will find that Mark Hacking had no LDS-based religious motivation for committing murder.

[HarryDunne]

"SHHHHhhhh! You'll awaken the Sleeping Mormon Giant here on FR."

Good point. As Jim Robinson has stated numerous times: No <insert religion here>-bashing allowed. Many freepers have been banned for it.

Now, can we go back to the topic at hand... you know, the missing woman?

[HarryDunne]

...and to wrap up the "Blood Atonement" nonsense, here is "a copy of a letter from Elder Bruce R. McConkie, acting under the direction of the President Kimball and the First Presidency, responding to this issue." Considering this letter is endorsed by the First Presidency, it can, therefore, be taken as official Church doctrine.

This should be considered a more accurate representation of Church goings-on than any disgruntled-ex-Mormon-written, anti-LDS propaganda you're currently "studying".

Maybe this little piece of information will even stop you from spouting such ignorant statements as "A loving Mormon will then kill the sinner as the "only" way to skip hell!".

[Former Fetus]

No -bashing allowed

No bashing intended. I had just finished several weeks of studing Mormon beliefs (from sources more reputable that y'all are giving me credit for) and I suggested a possible explanation for Lori's disappearance. Fact is, I don't know what happened to her, neither does anybody else in this board, we are just speculating!

As for HarryDunne, Utah Girl and others that have attacked my post... I wish I could believe you are right because, like I posted, a very good friend of mine is Mormon and I pray for his salvation every day. But when you react like someone has stepped on your tails, it makes it harder to believe that everything I read was wrong!

[HarryDunne]

I wish I could believe you are right because, like I posted, a very good friend of mine is Mormon and I pray for his salvation every day.

Right about what? Are you saying that the document I presented is not genuine? Or are you saying that the Church is not of God? Because we're not talking about the LDS Church being what it purports to be (that is to say, the restored church of Christ), we are talking about whether or not Mormons believe in blood atonement (excepting the blood of Christ). Your premise hinges on the erroneous notion that Mormons believe in it. I (and the First Presidency of the Church) say they do not.

But when you react like someone has stepped on your tails, it makes it harder to believe that everything I read was wrong!

You said something about my religion that was inaccurate and I corrected you. Does that logically disprove, or otherwise invalidate, the proof I presented to you? How could that make it more difficult to believe that blood atonement is not LDS doctrine, especially in light of the proof I offered? Or do you think I should sit back and let you misrepresent my religion?

[Former Fetus]

Let me try one more time, maybe then is time to take your own advice and go back to the topic at hand... you know, the missing woman?

First, sorry about the "stepping on the tails" comment. I agree your posts have been utterly reasonable, which is a far cry from the Freep-mails I've been getting. I reckon it was a mistake to try to answer more than one person in one post (BTW, this could have been avoided had I known how to post one answer for more than one person, like I've seen done in FR, but I'm absolutely in the dark as to how to do it). Some people, not you but others, reacted like... well like I had stepped on their tails, therefore my statement. They were so upset, it really made me wonder what was exactly they were upset about: my statement, my saying something that they did not want said out loud... But I repeat, your post was not like that, I should not have used your post to answer to other people unless I knew how to include their names in the to: line. For all of that, I apologize.

I found no fault with the document you provided, and I had spent countless hours in the LDS web site before. But when I referred to the blood atonement, my main source was a videotaped interview of a former LDS leader. I don't have his name with me right now, the video is in my church's library where I donated it to when I was done with it but if you are interested and contact me by Freep-mail I will get that name. Now, when you have 2 LDS leaders with contradicting statements, I would have to wonder about the credibility of each. I'm not familiar enough with either one to decide to listen to him and ignore the other! What seemed to ring a bell with me was an statement that this issue (blood atonement)was not something a Mormon missionary would tell a prospective convert, and something most Mormons would deny if questioned. This was my background, then I got all the Freep mail with very unkind comments, and my reaction was like "yes, that's what I had been warned about". That's why I mentioned that the people who acted like I had "stepped on their tails" made it harder for me to believe that I had got the wrong information. They were acting just like a former LDS leader had warned in the interview they would act!

What did I mean by I wish I could believe you are right? If you calm down, I think I had explained it. To me an statement to the effect that "there are sins that cannot be attoned by the blood of Christ but can be attoned by plain old human blood" is akin to heresy. That's why I hope you are right and that it is not a belief in the LDS church. I wish I could be certain of that. Because, like I mentioned in my post, a very close friend of mine is Mormon. We have had lots of discussions on topics like "salvation by faith or by works" but he refuses to discuss the blood atonement. You understand that if a dear friend believes something that I believe goes against Christian teaching, it worries me to death! For his sake I wish I could be 100% that the LDS church does not teach such a thing.

Well, we've used a lot of time and bandwith with this subject. If you want to continue talking about it, please Freep mail me. Just keep in mind that I don't mean no disrespect to your faith, that I had done some very serious studying, and that my only concern with Mormon beliefs goes just as far as my friend's salvation. Other than that, I had never been curious about the LDS church. Maybe it was a mistake to post my original comment, but honestly that's the first thing that crossed my mind when I first heard about the disappearance!

[GovernmentShrinker]

The "blood atonement" doctrine is something that was bandied about in the early, disorganized years of the LDS Church. Per HarryDunne's link, it is most certainly not the teaching of the modern LDS Church. The confusion is due to some of the weird little independent cultish Mormon groups, some of which preach stuff like this, along with forcing adolescent girls into polygamous marriages.

BTW, I have no personal stake in this -- I am not and never have been a Mormon, or any other kind of Christian (and DON"T try to convert me).

[Former Fetus]

Thank you!

and DON"T try to convert me

No problem, I don't convert anybody... the Holy Spirit does! However, I will include your name in my praying list. And if you ever wonder what you might be missing, or if the "peace that defies all understanding" has anything to do with the Spanish government bowing to the terrorists (it doesn't)... contact me and I'll be glad to talk! :-)

[HarryDunne]

I regret that you have had to wade through so much misinformation about the Church. And I see that you have preconceived notions about the Church that you don't want to let go. I guess that happens sometimes. As for you taking alot of flack over your posts, some folks don't like lies being spread about them. Can you blame them?

So, let's just go ahead and finish my rebuttal to your original theory and move on...

When you have 2 LDS leaders with contradicting statements, I would have to wonder about the credibility of each.

Correction: 2 LDS General Authorities and one unknown man who claims to have once been a leader. Elder Bruce R. McConkie was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. President Spencer W. Kimball was President of the Church. If you truly spent "countless hours" researching the Church, you would be familiar with both of these men. When it comes to matters of official LDS doctrine, there is no contest between an unknown ex-Mormon leader in the video you mentioned and Elder McConkie and President Kimball.

That is all. I am done talking to you about this.