Posted on 06/17/2010 6:28:06 PM PDT by Colofornian
Utah death-row inmate Ronnie Lee Gardner is set to be executed by a firing squad on Friday. Thirty-five states allow the death penalty, but death by firing squad remains an option only in Utah.
SNIP
Every detail of April 2, 1985, is burned into her memory. Gardner was in court on a murder charge when he tried to escape. An accomplice slipped him a gun, and he shot and killed an attorney and also severely wounded George "Nick" Kirk, who was a bailiff. Kirk didn't die, but VelDean Kirk says he wasn't the same active, cheerful man anymore. She says his final years were marked by excruciating pain and depression from a sedentary life.
His daughter, Tami Stewart, feels sorry for Gardner, but she can't forgive him. She imagines him in the death chamber. "He's going to feel that fear that he put into every one of those men. He's done. We've given him more than enough," Stewart says.
Gardner did get one choice: how he would die. In court, after being told he'd exhausted his appeals, the 49-year-old made his preference known.
"I would like the firing squad, please," he told the court...
...Utah's last firing-squad execution 14 years ago attracted more than 150 news crews from across the globe. They were interested in one thing: the method of execution.
SNIP
Utah historian Will Bagley says the reason this method of execution exists is rooted in Utah's history as a Mormon sanctuary. "I think we need to be honest about it. We have the last firing squads in the country as a legacy of Mormon theology," Bagley says.
Some early Mormon leaders believed in blood atonement for the most egregious sins. "To atone for those, Jesus' blood didn't count. You had to shed your own blood," Bagley says.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Oh, so you do admit you have personal conversations discussing your sexes and other items.
No wonder you have such coordinated,, bigoted eplies.
- - - -
What ‘admit’ and ‘personal conversations’?!?! I called him a ‘she’ once and he mentioned he was a ‘he’. We are often on the same threads, and we know a lot about each other.
Take your tinfoil hat off, it seems to be to tight.
And I am not a ‘bigot’, I oppose MormonISM, I have several Mormon friends whom I love dearly enough to tell them the truth about their religion, stuff their own leadership hides from them.
Just because you do not like what I say, it does not make me a bigot and neither does my posts against Mormonism.
Now, Geraldo, about that ‘Al Capone’ fiasco...
Ok, I see if I can ILL it.
Blood atonement was about the Old Testament but a little fact like that should not stop you from embellishing!
Matter of fact some Jewish sec today are waiting for a perfect Red Heifer for their atonement ceramony.
The Red Heifer.
http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/rossier/RedHeif.html
Ya I am unto yours too
Bigot!
I apologize I believe I have missed read your post I thought you ment Invincibly Ignorant
Oh yes. the truth must be censured.
Oh yes. the truth must be censured.
- - - -
Not at all, but plagiarism is BAD and sources should be cited.
I agree, the bigoted fools in the anti-LDS crowd ARE crazy!
:)
No way are you a true Christian your behavior precedes your imaginations!
what would one dirt bag know from another what they believe rebellious is rebellious...
To: BlueMoose
Each link is on a page at the site leading to the final one named: Contradictions in LDS Doctrines
Sorry to not lead all the way.
Here’s the complete link trajectory.
Evidence for God from Science > Aberrant “Christian” Theology > Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) > Contradictions in LDS Doctrines
39 posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 8:55:36 PM by delacoert
You are the master of non-sequitur.
/eyeroll
It’s OKAY. We will pray for your soul and the victims of Gardner. Him, he can burn in hell!
Thank you
If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is Yes.
If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No.
We believe that the blood of Christ, shed in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary, cleanses all men from sin on condition of repentance.
As expressed by a Book of Mormon scripture: “Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. (Mosiah 3:18.)
We do not believe that it is necessary for men in this day to shed their own blood to receive a remission of sins. This is said with a full awareness of what I and others have written and said on this subject in times past
In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person.
These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice.
However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation.
It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member or a non-member of the Church.
Geez we have too suffer these anti LDS lying fools everyday!
Geez we have too suffer these anti LDS lying fools everyday!
- - - - -
Your leaders applied to this dispensation, how are we lying when we say your leaders taught it?? I have a whole lot of sources from ‘this dispensation’.
http://www.shields-research.org/General/blood_atonement.htm
BLOOD ATONEMENT
The issue of “Blood Atonement” is a classic in the charges used against the LDS Church by anti-Mormons. It originated with the so-called Danite band formed in Far West, MO by Sampson Avard (a group condemned by the LDS Church from the beginning). Blood Atonement continues to rear its ugly head because critics would rather find something sinister to lodge against the LDS Church, than to accept the facts.
The following 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.
Letter to Thomas B. McAfee
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
The Council of the Twelve
47 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
October 18, 1978
Mr. Thomas B. McAffee
Utah Law Review, College of Law
The University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
Dear Mr. McAffee:
This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1978, to President Spencer W. Kimball of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in which you asked some questions about the so-called doctrine of blood atonement. I have been asked, by President Kimball and by the First Presidency to respond to your inquiries
You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early church leaders have said and written about this doctrine and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the Church today.
If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is Yes. If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No.
We believe that the blood of Christ, shed in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary, cleanses all men from sin on condition of repentance. As expressed by a Book of Mormon scripture: “Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. (Mosiah 3:18.)
We do not believe that it is necessary for men in this day to shed their own blood to receive a remission of sins. This is said with a full awareness of what I and others have written and said on this subject in times past
In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person. These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice. However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation. It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member or a non-member of the Church.
Mr. Thomas B. McAffee
October 18, 1978
Page 2
There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins. Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses. From the day of Joseph Smith to the present there has been no single instance of so-called blood atonement under any pretext.
Anything I have written or anything said by anyone else must be understood in the light of the foregoing limitation. Brigham Young and the others were speaking of a theoretical principle that operated in ages past and not in either their or our day. As I recall, Brigham Young’s illustrations were taken from the day of Moses and the history of ancient Israel and could not be applied today.
There is no such a doctrine as blood atonement in the Church today nor has there been at any time. Any statements to the contrary are either idle speculation or pure fantasy. It is certainly not the current teaching of the Church and I have never in over 60 years of regular church attendance heard a single sermon on the subject or even a discussion in any church class.
You asked if the statements of our leaders of the past, including those found in the Journal of Discourses, represent the official stand of the Church. The answer, as indicated in the comments above set forth, is that they do not. The statements pertain to a theoretical principle that has been neither revealed to nor practiced by us.
If by blood atonement is meant capital punishment, then any proper analysis of the subject would call the matter by the name capital punishment and not by the name blood atonement. To use this latter term is wholly misleading and stirs up the idea that we believe in that which we most emphatically do not believe.
We believe in capital punishment. In a revelation to Joseph Smith, on February 9, 1831, the Lord said: “And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.” (D. & C. 42:18-19.)
In answering some false and scurrilous charges published against the Latter-day Saints, the President of the Church, who then was Wilford Woodruff, on January 9, 1891, wrote to the
Mr. Thomas B. McAffee
October 18, 1978
Page 3
editor of the Illustrated American. President Woodruff referred to the doctrine herein being considered as “the blood atonement fiction,” and as “the false theory of blood atonement copied by the writer in the American from old newspaper fiction.”
Then he recites what the doctrine of the Church is when the term blood atonement is used simply as a synonym for capital punishment.
“It is a fundamental doctrine of our creed that a murderer cannot be forgiven; that he ‘hath not eternal life abiding in him’; that if a member of our Church, having received the light of the Holy Spirit, commits this capital crime, he will not receive forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come. The revelations of God to the Church abound in commandments forbidding us to shed blood.”
With specific reference to capital punishment as practiced by the State and not the Church he said: “It is part of our faith that the only atonement a murdere[r] can make for his ‘sin unto death’ is the sheddinq of his own blood, according to the fiat of the Almighty after the flood: ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed.’ But the law must be executed by the lawfully appointed officer. This is ‘blood atonement,’ so much perverted by maligners of our faith. We believe also in the atonement wrought by the shedding of Christ’s blood on Calvary; that it is efficacious for all the race of Adam for the sin committed by Adam, and for the individual sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and who receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of authorized hands. Capital crime committed by such an enlightened person cannot be condoned by the Redeemer’s blood. For him there is ‘no more sacrifice for sin’; his life is forfeit, and he only can pay the penalty. There is no other blood atonement taught, practiced or made part of the creed of the Latter-day Saints.”
I repeat: Except for the atonement of Christ, which is or should be a part of the creeds of all Christian churches; and except for the use of the term “blood atonement” as a synonym—nothing more—of “capital punishment” where “enlightened” members of the Church are concerned, there is no such a doctrine in this dispensation as blood atonement.
I have in my file a letter dated February 12, 1971, signed by Presidents Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee as and for the First Presidency which shows that the theoretical principle of blood atonement has no application in any dispensation when there is a separation of Church and State. They refer to the death of Christ by Jewish hands as a “capital crime,” and then quote the following from the third chapter of Acts:
Mr. Thomas B. McAffee
October 18, 1978
Page 4
“And now, brethren, 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 shall come from the presence of the Lord;
“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you.”:
Then they say: “From the above it is understood that this is a matter which must be left in the hands of the Lord, not for man to determine.”
Now, as to your final question—whether blood atonement, “if” it is “a valid doctrine,” would hale any affect on the mode of imposing the death penalty, I need only say:
1. Since there is no such thing as blood atonement, except as indicated above, the mode of execution could have no bearing on the matter of atoning for one’s sins; and
2. If we are speaking simply of capital punishment (and falsely calling it blood atonement), still I can see no reason for supposing that it makes the slightest difference how an execution is accomplished.
As far as I can see there is no difference between a firing squad, an electric chair, a gas chamber, or hanging. Death is death and I would interpret the shedding of man’s blood in legal executions as a figurative expression which means the taking of life. There seems to me to be no present significance as to whether an execution is by a firing squad or in some other way. I, of course, deleted my article on “hanging” from the Second Edition of Mormon Doctrine because of the reasoning here mentioned.
As far as I am concerned you are at liberty to quote from or use this letter in any way you deem proper.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. McConkie
BRM:vh
Just for amusement:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian :)
the bigoted fools in the anti-LDS crowd ARE crazy!
- - - - -
Not HALF as crazy as the bigoted LDS fools who believe they will become GODS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.