Was this post supposed to make sense?
Tell you what. Since you seem to need first-hand experiential presentations, we'll put you in a time machine set for Utah 150+ years ago. (We'll make you a DB -- a "designated bishop" for that time.) You're listening to the LDS "prophet," Brigham talking about the requirement for "pay[ing] the debt."
The blood of Christ will never wipe that [the debt]out; your own blood must atone for it..." (Instructions to Bishops, JoD,vol. 3, p. 72)
After bishop instruction, you head off to hear Brigham give a message to men and women:
Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for yous sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid. (1857, JoD, Vol. 4, p. 51)
There it is. 1857. The person sitting next to you says, "Indeed, there are sins that cannot be forgiven thru my baptism alone."
You then say, "Well, what does the prophet say to do then?"
Your seat neighbor says, "my blood will have to be shed, and its smoke ascend like incense as blood atonement."
You then say: "Well, you know Brother Mormon, Blood Atonement is a principle....not an event." [underline portion is your post #147]
Your seat neighbor responds: "Oh, you mean I don't have to obey the prophet & have my blood shed as an atonement for my sin?"
"Well, on the other hand, following His commandments, and being faithful to the end of your life are the requirements of eternal life." [underline portion is your post #237]
Your seat neighbor: "Oh, dear, what do I do? Make blood atonement only a "principle" and not an "event," or follow his commands as spoken thru the prophet and thereby be faithful by letting my blood be shed?"
Boy, what's a Mormon to do in such a predicament with such contradictory quandary?