We could be entering "he said, she said" territory here. What I mean is I recall an old LDS justification for firing squad, but the CoJCoLDS clearly and loudly denies any such link. "We don't teach blood atonement. Never have".
They could be right. Seriously.
Or it could be an old LDS tradition that was never officially sanctioned or taught. The old "popular religion versus official religion".
One has to consider the possibility that yes it was LDS teaching but people are embarrassed by it and now deny it.
My experience is that LDS doctrine is difficult to pin down for this reason. One gets the impression sometimes there is no such thing as official Mormon teaching. Because every time you say "you guys believe this right?" you get in response "that's not official doctrine, that's propaganda from critics of our religion".
For the record I do prefer primary sources for studying any religious movement. What comes from Temple Square trumps "anti-Mormon" literature. Not that the latter is always or necessarily wrong.
I think you are right. The article also mentions the Mormon Chruch was consulted which seems to indiate that this might have been one of thos unofficial doctirnes
We could be entering "he said, she said" territory here. What I mean is I recall an old LDS justification for firing squad, but the CoJCoLDS clearly and loudly denies any such link. "We don't teach blood atonement. Never have".
ReplyDeleteThey could be right. Seriously.
Or it could be an old LDS tradition that was never officially sanctioned or taught. The old "popular religion versus official religion".
One has to consider the possibility that yes it was LDS teaching but people are embarrassed by it and now deny it.
My experience is that LDS doctrine is difficult to pin down for this reason. One gets the impression sometimes there is no such thing as official Mormon teaching. Because every time you say "you guys believe this right?" you get in response "that's not official doctrine, that's propaganda from critics of our religion".
For the record I do prefer primary sources for studying any religious movement. What comes from Temple Square trumps "anti-Mormon" literature. Not that the latter is always or necessarily wrong.
I think you are right. The article also mentions the Mormon Chruch was consulted which seems to indiate that this might have been one of thos unofficial doctirnes
ReplyDelete