The church TODAY does not teach it - but the historic mormon church HAS taught it. For instance tenth Mormon prophet and president Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Man may commit certain grievous sins - according to his light and knowledge -that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone - so far as the power lies - for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:135,138 emphasis mine).
Your statement is found invalid Jeff.
Brigham Young did refer to various blood atonement ideas and thoughts he had, but what I just stated in the 1st paragraph about Christ is the doctrine and teaching of the church.
Misstatement again Jeff. Young didn't offer ideas and thoughts - he taught it as doctrine and was sustained by the membership. The fact that the teaching/doctrine was carried by even the 10th prophet shows otherwise.
The Journal of Discourses is not recognized or taught of as scripture for the church. It is a historical journal of many of the speeches and lectures those men gave, but they of themselves do not represent the doctrine that the Church espouses or follows. . . . . . But also in most of those cases, the people doing so are not really interested in what the Church actually teaches, they are more interested in trying to claim fault.
Oh really - plausible deniability. Yet your church teaches-
Words of Our Living Prophets
In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).
You words read hollow Jeff. It isn't hard to go back and read the passages in context and see that the citations are fully supported. It is clear that the church TAUGHT these things as stated in your church's "Gospel Principles". Further they are commanded to teach only true and faithful doctrine at all times.
Well, people are imperfect. They say and do imperfect things. Even the best amongst us sometimes. It's why we all need Christ. But, anyone looking can generally find fault and broadcast it as such when they want to tear down or attack anyone else.
Yet that is exactly what mormonism has attempted since its inception. Yet is it tearing down to expose actual historical doctrinal teachings of your prophets and apostles that today have fallen into disfavor? Is that the excuse for polygamy? Is that the excuse for allowing blacks the priesthood?
And yet Christ Himself, in the New Testament in John when praying to His Father for hHis disciples and those that would hear them, indicated that their oneness was exactly what He wanted for His disciples and those whom they teach ("I would that they would be one, even as we are one,")...clearly a oneness in unity and purpose and not that they would meld together into the same body and/or spirit.
LOL, unity of purpose does not repudiate the doctrine of the Trinity Jeff - as it is a component of it as well. Best you start at the beginning of John - that places the whole book into context.
This is shown in many other places, like when God the Father and His Son were seen by the martyr Stephen, God on the Throne and Christ on His right hand, next to Him, seperately.
Show me specifically that Stephen saw a God of flesh and bone? No, he saw the doxa of God and the relating to the 'right hand' is positional not literal.
God the Father spoke at Christ's Baptism, the Holy Ghost descended, and Christ was in the water...all three of them seperately at His Baptism, and again at the mount of transfiguaration.
Once again, you fail at the scriptures. The Trinity also embraces the three fold expression at the baptism. You sound like your definition is typical mormon misrepresentation of the Trinity as modalism. Not surprising, can't defeat the real thing, misrepresent it. BTW, re read the transfiguration passages again.
Clearly, the Bible itself amply teaches what the oneness Christ refers to means...clear back to Genesis We can cover this ground again too...but it is clear we differ in interpretation on these points.
In your case - misinterpretation.
Which does not take away from, or lessen Christ's atonement for all of us and our utter reliance on Him and Him crucified.
Sorry, mormonism takes away because is lessens the atonement. It is irrefutable that mormonism teaches the atonement doesn't cover all sin - and that mormons are required to live sinless, perfect lives before that atonement can be available. BTW, mormons reject the cross and what it stands for.
We can beat the amoral liberals, socialists and marxists who beset us, together and with God in Heaven's help, and we can defeat the tyranical fundamental Islamics and other enemies who would inslave us all.
Sorry, my God is not the god of mormonism - so we cannot stand on that common appeal. And why join with mormonism - it has produced those enemies of the country like rommney and reid.
Not every word they speak or write is scripture and considered or taught as church doctrine, it is when they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so...and then the doctrine is distributed by the Church through its leadership to the members who then can, through commen consent, accept it, or voice their objections.
The principle of continuing revelation is something we believe in, and believe that the Lord can speak to us today through that avenue as Paul taught that His church was made up of, "Apostles anbd Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone"....and, as He said, we would need that avenue "until we all come to a unity of the faith, to a perfect man." It is clear that we are not there yet...thus our belief in the need for it to be restored and continue.
Are there things in Gospel Principles that the Church does teach as its doctrine? Yes. Are there things in there it does not? Also, yes.
There is not misrepresentation or deception here...you seem eager and more than happy and willing to, in essence, call me a liar. Well, I deny it categorically and God will be the judge between us.
The difference is in interpretation...and that is what you are doing when you speak of the modal and doxa, and say it is figurative and not literal. But Stephen said what he said. Sort of like the 2nd amenment to the Constitution...I believe it's really pretty straight forward to anyone reading it...but you see it differently and that does not make either one of us a liar or misrepresenting anything.
I have not implied ar said that you were lying or trying to decieve anyone, Godzilla...simply that I do not agree with you and cited the reasons why. Others will decide as they will.
No need for futher discussion on this...it is clear we disagree and that you are not really interested in hearing what we really believe as I have tried to explain it to you as one who has been active in it for over 40 years...other than your desire to try and "prove" whatever I say about it as wrong.
Well, you'll never prove faith my friend...it is of the heart and born through the witness of the Spirit.
And that's fine...I pray God and Christ's blessing on you in your walk, wherever and whenever you sincerely try and bring others to Him as He would direct you and as He would do. I will go about doing the same.