Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 'Christian'.

[Kirran]

Early Christian theology, for one, was very varied. You had Arians, Miaphysites, Monophysites, Binitarians and Trinitarians, Docedists...

 

[buddhist]

Good question. I wish more acted like this instead of becoming ravenous wolves ready for the slaughter of little Ol' me- that's how I read some anyway.
A prophecy tells the world whether or not a church/group, therefore, a God, is real or imagined and invented (my personal opinion, y'all). IF a prophecy comes true- in a way that is impossible to know the results before they occur- then it is clear that, indeed, whoever gave it had insights no one else had. And, he had access to God bc only God can see the future so clear as to tell us, in precise and minute detail, what will happen and how- sometimes by who.
For ex. one religion states that something from outer space is going to hit the earth with so much force that it will knock the earth off its Axis. That will shift the Poles and create mayhem and havoc on...well...a biblical scale. Today, after more than 2,000 years since that prophecy was issued, we know for a fact that will happen one day. But no one knew it back then bc no one wrote about it. There are other prophecies that are as bad as that one that has occurred or we can see it coming- like a 200 Million-man Army (3 entities can muster that many today, the UN, China and India). That war will also use Nukes, as also described in the Bible. No other book, that I know of, has ever given one prophecy that either compares or came to pass. If you know of one please provide it for all of us, k? Thanks.
Also, if another church/group issues prophecies and they don't come true then they aren't. I have yet to read prophecies from some groups that have come true. There is always some (to me) slight-of-hand going on.

In the Buddhist view, there are a multitude of deva-gods, with immensely long lives and great powers. How do we know that one of those devas didn't announce a "prophecy" and then fulfill it himself?

To give an analogy: ants live about 3 months. What if I find a way to communicate with ants, announce that a great flood will overwhelm their ant hill in 3 generations, then I come back in 9 months and pour a pitcher of water into their anthill? Does that make me God Almighty?

 

[Sonny]

Christians are people who believe in Jesus, and all the rest is just window dressing.

metis, I know you mean well and believe, probably, in what you say but that is impossible. Not all who profess can be. (not being mean or offensive but...) Is Scientology, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Moonies, 'Christians' all Christians bc they say they are? Consider the vastly different and often directly opposite teachings. If God is truly all-knowing and unchangeable how can he change to allow, or teach, such opposite doctrines as 'how many or him (Gods) there are' or 'what are his greatest commandment'. Every church has a different doctrine for many such beliefs. As an ex. One 'Christian' church teaches the Millennial Reign will be 1,000 years of Christ's absolute control over the whole world (Bible) and another 'Christian' church teaches the 'Millennial Reign began with the founding of their church in April of 1830'. Are both churches Christian even tho they teach such vastly different beliefs? No, they can't all be true. Doctrines/teachings matter do matter. I think you should rethink what you think but only bc what you think can't be possible, I think. (pun intended)

 

[Sonny]

I am quite sure that Jesus's teachings are to teach us how to live our lives in the love of God and care for all his creation.

Jesus made a clear distinction in what is His will. He also taught that most people, from Beginning to End, will go to hell.

Dogma , church rules and specific beliefs are not important.

So,
Teaching that God, who is perfect, just and righteous in all of His ways, is the dad of the Devil is ok?
Teaching such things as God had sexual intercourse (with his own daughter is ok?
Teaching that God committed incest by having sexual relations with his own daughter is ok?
Teaching a book is the most correct book on earth then promptly changing that book at least 4,000 times is ok?
Teaching that all people will look upon a man as God is ok?
Teaching that a mere mortal man did more than a man most view as God in human form who created everything that exists in nature is ok?
Teaching that some man gets to decide who goes to heaven when a book considered by most of the world to be God's Scripture says Jesus decides who will and who won't go to heaven is ok?
And, there are hundreds of such teachings across the realm of religious books. I find it hard to believe most beliefs are from God. Where are any of the above 'teachings' taught in the Bible?

 

[Sonny]

That's quite an assumption, so can you provide one piece of evidence for this?

The only source I have is the Bible itself. However, it is a historically trusted authority on matters like this. And, unlike all other books, it has multiple people, 40/NT alone, from every walk of life that have assisted in writing it yet all of it fits together perfectly. I'd add fulfilled prophecies as positive evidence, too.

 

[Riders]

Interesting quote by Timothy Beale:

Although all of them have their historical roots in Christian theology and tradition, and although most would identify themselves as Christian, many would not identify others within the larger category as Christian. Most Baptists and fundamentalists, for example, would not acknowledge Mormonism or Christian Science as Christian. In fact, the nearly 77 percent of Americans who self-identify as Christian are a diverse pluribus of Christianities that are far from any collective unity.

Its 70 percent, the number is 70 percent of people in America identify as Christian. That include Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Universal Christian church, Quae doesn't requite belief in Jesus as God . So its actually if you dont count churches that mainstream Christian churches don't count its really 65 percent of America is Christian.

 

[metis]

The only source I have is the Bible itself. However, it is a historically trusted authority on matters like this...

That's because you believe in it, but that opinion is not shared by billions of others. The Bible is a great book, imo, but it's not the only book.

 

[Sonny]

Actually, you have judged us. But that's okay. God's not going to take your opinion of us into account anyway.

Really? You said that to them knowing that JS taught all churches are of the devil except his? Whoa! Plus, you trashed me good early on. Stating the truth, Katzpur, is not judging. And, you accused me, wrongly, of having attacked you personally. I wouldn't be saying anything about anyone else's character or integrity if I was you. IMO, you do not have the morally superior high ground here. Far from it.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was "God" "in the beginning." He didn't attain Godhood at some point in His existance, like at His birth, His baptism or His resurrection. He was God when He created the earth, He was God when He walked the earth, and He is God today.

Yes, we believe that Michael aided Jesus in the Creation. So what?

And, that Adam is the one who created everything. Adam is also Jesus' dad, according to a couple of LDS prophets (BY, WW, for 2)

God is functionally omnipresent, and that's all the Bible ever speaks of Him as being.

Then what happened to David Patten? What happened to all of his temples being built bc he commanded it (he always does what he says he will, like build temples- Abr. 3:17b) but he couldn't see (prevent) Patten being shot dead and not going on his mission next spring with 10 others (only Patten died of the LDS leaders) or the non-LDS from stopping him in his temple-building efforts (D&C 3:1-3). Apparently, it really was the work of a 'man' that was frustrated.

Yes, God knew exactly what was going to happen when He put Adam and Eve in the Garden and allowed the Serpent to tempt them. Adam didn't put one over on Him or do something to thwart His plan. God truly had our welfare and happiness in mind when He created this world and allowed us to come here. What an unselfish and loving Father in Heaven we have.

I think working the dirt in briars and thorns, where none had been previously, by the sweat of his brow until he returned to dust was a lot better than eating free fruit and laying around all day and enjoying doing nothing. Don't you?

Well, we shouldn't have to provide a Bible reference for the "beliefs" we don't believe (like that Jesus only became God at some point in His existence instead of always being God). And we don't have to provide a Bible reference for the other beliefs since we are not limited in our understanding to just one volume of scriptures.

The Bible doesn't teach most of what the LDS believe. That is the point of OP.
But, are you now saying that Eternal Progression doesn't continually progress as the LDS church teaches? That, in fact, while man is supposedly eternally progressing some regressing (reincarnation) occurs? And, since Jesus' first/original body of flesh was long gone (back to dust) what body did he use while on earth? Had to be a new one, right? If so, that would be reincarnation, wouldn't it?
Also, being a human Being is the 2nd step in the progress of us humans, according to LDS theology. First, we are the products of God and one of his (possibly Millions of) wives in the spirit world. Then our spirits take on flesh and come to earth and begin our journey back to God thru works and obeying the church leaders/church doctrine. So how did Jesus live on a planet as a man- the 1st time (that he didn't create bc he was a mere mortal man and not a God yet), how did he eat food and drink water that didn't exist (bc he wasn't a God yet so he had not created anything yet- nothing existed anywhere in the Universe, LDS say), and how did he breathe air that didn't exist until he 'became' a God much, much later and then created "All things"? I don't understand that so would you explain it to us, please?

 

[Katzpur]

Early Christian theology, for one, was very varied. You had Arians, Miaphysites, Monophysites, Binitarians and Trinitarians, Docedists...

Christianity was far from cohesive even by the end of the first century. I'm amazed as how relatively few Christians recognize that.

 

[Kirran]

Christianity was far from cohesive even by the end of the first century. I'm amazed as how relatively few Christians recognize that.

I like the Christian Gnostics

And, in the medieval period, the Brethren of the Free Spirit!

 

[Katzpur]

I like the Christian Gnostics

And, in the medieval period, the Brethren of the Free Spirit!

Well, obviously you're going to hell then. It's been nice knowing you, though.

I didn't realize until just now that you're British. My husband and I took a 30-day road trip throughout England, Scotland and Wales in September, 2016. It was an absolute vacation of a lifetime. Too bad I didn't know you then. It would have been fun to get together. I did get to meet my longtime friend, Terrywoodenpic, though. What a great memory!

 

[Sonny]

Sony, with all due respect, you seem overly obsessed with the LDS churches teachings that seem to go beyond a friendly discussion of what's different between your two faiths. Did you at some point have a negative encounter with a Mormon?
Sincerely

Why do you say that, bc I know a lot about them? I've never heard anyone say our Rocket Scientists are obsessed with space. Truth is what they are, and I am, after. Bible/Jesus did say the truth would be hated. I guess it is. I am this way with every religion I have studied. I ask questions and bc they can't or won't answer them, simple questions, they get upset and trash me or try to have me kicked off a Forum. Btw, please explain how (here I have to go again) simply repeating what they taught is mean or obsessed or 'whatever' comes next?
Never had a negative encounter w/LDS. I, like a few people I know, almost became one. But I, with them, went back to April 6, 1830 and read forward. I know a lot about Mormonism bc I lived in Utah for about 35 years. Since then I show people that the LDS church is not a Christian church. No hate, no animosity and no irrational fear of LDS brought me here. Just a desire for the truth to be known. Is that so bad, really?
Btw, David, I am not the one who trashes others when they say things about my church. Katzpur has already attacked me and accused me, wrongly of course, of attacking her. But I don't turn people in to the Mods. If I can't answer other's questions then I say I can't. I don't get all weird or nutty. Problem is they can't answer questions about their founding/early doctrines. Why not? Making excuses is not an answer. The whole point here is not about truth or error, it is, IS the LDS a Christian church. I am pointing out why it is not. That's it and that's all I am doing.

 

[Kirran]

Well, obviously you're going to hell then. It's been nice knowing you, though.

I didn't realize until just now that you're British. My husband and I took a 30-day road trip throughout England, Scotland and Wales in September, 2016. It was an absolute vacation of a lifetime. Too bad I didn't know you then. It would have been fun to get together. I did get to meet my longtime friend, Terrywoodenpic, though. What a great memory!

I am from one of this archipelago's odder communities, too!

That's a shame I'm glad you had a good time though, and corrected your atrocious pronunciation by the time you went back.

If you're ever around again, feel free to swing by. I'll near-definitely be living in a monastery at the time, but that's cool, it gets loads of visitors (30k/year and counting).

There was even a couple of young Mormon lads visited once before. In matching white shirts bearing nametags.

 

[Kirran]

@Sonny I do admire your patiently going through the whole (long!) thread so as not to miss anybody's responses.

 

[Katzpur]

A group of settlers were killed by the Utah Territorial Militia along with some Paiute native people.

It was a tragic event. Here's the story of another equally tragic massacre:

I'm sure it would be safe to say that the majority of the population of Missouri in 1838 was Christian and that Governor Lillburn Boggs considered himself a Christian. He had an intense hatred of Mormonism and was in a position to be able to channel his hatred into law. Here's the kind of thing the laws he sanctioned permitted...

"On October 30, [1838] Colonel William O. Jennings of the Missouri state militia took 240 men and attacked the tiny LDS settlement of Haun's Mill on Shoal Creek in remote eastern Caldwell County. Having been forced to surrender all weapons in the settlement five days before as part of a "truce," Joseph Smith had in fact counseled Jacob Haun to desert the settlement and bring his people to Far West. Assuming the truce was authentic, and thinking it cowardly to abandon the settlement, Haun instead told his follows it was the Prophet's counsel that they endeavor to maintain the place. Thus most of the settlers were waiting quietly at the doors of their homes when Jenning's men rode into view. When three horsemen lurched forward, guns blazing, the women and children fled south across a frozen stream into the woods. Mary Stedwell was one of the first hit as they ran, in the hand, but she fell over a log into which the horsemen sent more than a dozen lead balls. Another dozen women and children were hit as they ran. But Jennings wanted the men, most of whom had rushed for position inside the blacksmith shop. The mobbers thrust their muskets through the cracks in the widely spaced logs and fired, killing seventeen men and small boys.

Although the massacre was over within minutes, many wounded lay dying. Sixty-two-year-old Thomas McBride was on his back in the dirt, his gun laying at his side. A militiaman, William Rogers, came up to him and demanded it. Unable to move, the old man said simply, "Take it." Rogers grabbed the weapon, turned it around, and shot the old man in the chest. He then pulled a harvesting knife from his saddle and hacked up McBride, who was still alive. Another militiaman, William Reynolds, entered the blacksmith shop where he discovered ten-year-old Sardius Smith and his little brother Alma hiding beneath the bellows, whimpering at the side of their dead father. Sardius begged for their lives, but Reynolds grinned at his associates, saying "Nits make lice," and blew the child's brains out, splattering his little brother. He then sent another ball into six-year-old Alma, destroying most of his hip."

Footnote: Historical sources vary on who killed little Sardius Smith; it seems a half dozen men thought the brave deed worthy of person claim. (See Baugh, "Massacre at Haun's Mill," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol 38, No. 1.)"

 

[Kirran]

It was a tragic event. Here's the story of another equally tragic massacre:

I'm sure it would be safe to say that the majority of the population of Missouri in 1838 was Christian and that Governor Lillburn Boggs considered himself a Christian. He had an intense hatred of Mormonism and was in a position to be able to channel his hatred into law. Here's the kind of thing the laws he sanctioned permitted...

"Feeling justified by the orders of his own governor, on October 30, [1838] Colonel William O. Jennings of the Missouri state militia took 240 men and attacked the tiny LDS settlement of Haun's Mill on Shoal Creek in remote eastern Caldwell County. Having been forced to surrender all weapons in the settlement five days before as part of a "truce," Joseph Smith had in fact counseled Jacob Haun to desert the settlement and bring his people to Far West. Assuming the truce was authentic, and thinking it cowardly to abandon the settlement, Haun instead told his follows it was the Prophet's counsel that they endeavor to maintain the place. Thus most of the settlers were waiting quietly at the doors of their homes when Jenning's men rode into view. When three horsemen lurched forward, guns blazing, the women and children fled south across a frozen stream into the woods. Mary Stedwell was one of the first hit as they ran, in the hand, but she fell over a log into which the horsemen sent more than a dozen lead balls. Another dozen women and children were hit as they ran. But Jennings wanted the men, most of whom had rushed for position inside the blacksmith shop. The mobbers thrust their muskets through the cracks in the widely spaced logs and fired, killing seventeen men and small boys.

Although the massacre was over within minutes, many wounded lay dying. Sixty-two-year-old Thomas McBride was on his back in the dirt, his gun laying at his side. A militiaman, William Rogers, came up to him and demanded it. Unable to move, the old man said simply, "Take it." Rogers grabbed the weapon, turned it around, and shot the old man in the chest. He then pulled a harvesting knife from his saddle and hacked up McBride, who was still alive. Another militiaman, William Reynolds, entered the blacksmith shop where he discovered ten-year-old Sardius Smith and his little brother Alma hiding beneath the bellows, whimpering at the side of their dead father. Sardius begged for their lives, but Reynolds grinned at his associates, saying "Nits make lice," and blew the child's brains out, splattering his little brother. He then sent another ball into six-year-old Alma, destroying most of his hip."

Footnote: Historical sources vary on who killed little Sardius Smith; it seems a half dozen men thought the brave deed worthy of person claim. (See Baugh, "Massacre at Haun's Mill," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol 38, No. 1.)"

That was a pretty ghastly read.

 

[Katzpur]

I am from one of this archipelago's odder communities, too!

That's a shame I'm glad you had a good time though, and corrected your atrocious pronunciation by the time you went back.

If you're ever around again, feel free to swing by. I'll near-definitely be living in a monastery at the time, but that's cool, it gets loads of visitors (30k/year and counting).

There was even a couple of young Mormon lads visited once before. In matching white shirts bearing nametags.

My atrocious pronunciation? I beg your pardon!

 

[Sonny]

He did, however, state that people would be able to recognize His followers by the love they showed to their fellow men. That appears to have been very, very important to Him.

Actually, Jesus taught we will know them by their works. The Mormon god thru its longest-lived prophet BY taught that Adam "Is the only God with whom we have to do". To Christians like me that is sheer blasphemy. They also teach that JS is a God and there could be Trillions of Gods and as many worlds full of differing creatures, including humans.

Our belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of all who come to Him, acknowledging His great atoning sacrifice and promise to cleanse us from our sins, is the foundation upon which we live our lives. There is not one thing the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ that we do not accept as valid and true.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the ONLY (emphasis) begotten Son of God. In Mormon think all of us are begotten by God and one of his numerous wives in heaven. Unless the LDS mean Jesus is the only begotten 'son' of God where God had sexual relations with his own daughter, Mary (will post page from LDS teachings to verify) to birth Jesus.
See, uploaded photo below

Yes, Mormons hold the Bible in very high regard, as if clearly evident in the following sermon given on the subject by M. Russell Ballard, an Apostle in the LDS Church: The Miracle of the Holy Bible. In fact, in our adult Sunday School classes, we study it two years for every one year we study The Book of Mormon. It has been described as "foremost among the Standard Works of the Church."

The LDS church/leaders said this about the Bible (not once did they, even attempt, to produce evidence for these teachings. I believe I can show they often say one thing then the diametric opposite thing)-
I am sorry for caps- emphasis, not screaming. Really.
1. John A. Widtsoe (speaking for the Presiding Bishopric of the LDS church) taught, “In the early Christian days, the doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ were sadly corrupted, dark apostasy followed.” (Articles of faith in Everyday Life (AFEL) 8).

2. "Before the day of printing, each copy of the scriptures, as contained in the Bible, was copied by hand. Naturally, errors crept in. Words, sentences, or whole paragraphs MIGHT be left out. Misunderstandings led to false renderings. Countless such cases have been found. Then, some scribe MIGHT change the very text to conform to his preconceived ideas. Such variations from the oldest known have also been found. Since the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments have long since been lost, it is impossible, except through revelation, to restore the scriptures to their original purity.
Nevertheless, the hand of the Lord has ALWAYS been over these DIVINE records. NEITHER WRITER NOR COPYIST HAS BEEN ABLE TO DISTORT OR ERASE THE ESSENTIAL MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE. Throughout the ages, amidst the vicissitudes of time, in the face of apparent inaccuracies and contradictions, showing human imperfections, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES STAND UNCLOUDED AS A WITNESS FOR GOD, HIS NATURE AND RELATIONSHIP TO MAN, THE TRUE WAY TO HUMAN HAPPINESS, AND THE ETERNAL AND GLORIOUS DESTINY OF MANKIND.

THE SCRIPTURE HAVE NEVER BEEN WHOLLY AT THE MERCY OF MANKIND. HE WHO READS THEM TODAY MAY KNOW, AS THE PROPHETS WHO RECEIVED THEM, OF THE ETERNAL TRUTHS OF EXISTENCE." (Articles of faith in Everyday Life, 68, 69)

3. Orson Pratt- one of the first 12 LDS apostles- said,
"NO PART of the Bible can, with certainty, be known by them to be the word of God". (Pamphlets, 70-71)

4. Pratt also said,
"Who in his right mind, could, for one moment suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution?" (Orson Pratt, "Divine Authenticity of the BoM", pg.47)

5. "The BoM differs from present versions of the Bible in that it was TRANSLATED BY "THE GIFT AND POWER OF GOD." THE TRANSLATION IS CORRECT. THE ERRORS OF COPYING FOUND IN THE BIBLE ARE PRACTICALLY ABSENT IN THE BoM, FOR, AS FAR AS KNOWN, THE ONLY COPYING IS THE CONDENSATION BY AN ANCIENT PROPHET OF MATERIAL ON CERTAIN PLATES, INTO THE TEXT OF THE BOM. JS, the Prophet, records in his journal: "I told the brethren that the BoM was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." With this we can SAFELY agree." (Articles of Faith in Everyday Life (AFEL) by John A. Widtsoe, 70)

6. We find this comment from JS, “where the purity of the Scriptures remains unsullied by the folly of men”. (Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith (TPJS) 11)

7. Joseph Fielding Smith (10th LDS prophet) said (speaking of the pre-existence),
“This doctrine is to be found in the Bible, but in the present mutilated form in which this doctrines comes to us through that volume we cannot comprehend it.” (The Way to Perfection (W2P) 29)

8. JFS (speaking of the plan of redemption given to Adam by angels),
“Unfortunately our Bible, as we have it today, is very deficient in the statement of this fact.” (W2P 55)

9. JFS (speaking of the parents of Melchizedek),
“the Bible with its faulty translation” (W2P 157)

Clearly, the early LDS did not believe what Katzpur would have us think they did about the Bible. When the LDS start talking about their love of the Bible, which they did decades after teaching these false things about it, I always point them to these teachings by numerous leaders of theirs. But notice that the LDS never admit wrong nor apologize for it when they are caught saying things like this.

 

[Sonny]

The stories in The Book of Mormon, for instance, take place on an entirely different continent than those in the Bible do, and involve an entirely different group of people. But I wonder why this should really even matter, if, in fact, the book does testify of Jesus Christ.

How did all of them get on that 'other' Continent, Katzpur? According to Mormon doctrine the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve were all created in Missouri, USA. I know about the submarines that brought them all 'back' to America but how did they get from here to over there?

Do you know that in the Book of Mormon, Jesus is referred to by name 188 times. He is named as "Christ" in 398 instances! He is spoken of as our Savior, Messiah, or Redeemer 85 times, and as the Son of God 51 times. He is spoken of as "God" on numerous occasions, including a couple of times in which He and His Father are said to be "one God" [/quote]
And, the BoM tells us Jesus, after coming to this continent, bragged about murdering millions of people. Why would the 'God of Love' ruthlessly murder his own innocent and helpless creation?

There are some definitely similarities between the LDS temple endowment ceremony and some of the ceremonies in Free Masonry. Joseph Smith was briefly interested in Masonry, although he only attended about a half a dozen meetings. He chose to use some of masonry's symbols but incorporated them into the temple ceremony as learning tools. Symbols, of course, can mean anything those using them determine that they're going to mean. For instance, long before Hitler ever adapted the swastika as a symbol of the Nazi party, the symbol was used to represent a great many other ideologies. Since I am not a mason and have never witnessed a masonic ceremony, I believe it would be out of line and inappropriate to try to second guess the meanings the masons gave to certain symbols. I know what they represent in Mormonism, but other than that they have been used before Joseph Smith used them, I really have no further comment.

Actually- truth be told, JS was a master Mason. I forget how long it took him but it was extremely quick (I'll look it up in my files). The SLC temple is covered in Masonic symbols. Did you forget to mention that, Katzpur, or was it left out intentionally, in an attempt to deceive others here?

Mormons would whole-heartedly agree with this statement. Brigham Young could be quite a "hellfire and damnation preacher when he wanted to, and he clearly liked to put the fear of God in the hearts of his congregation. Sometimes he got kind of carried away with himself. But, just so that you can see what the actual history behind this principle in Mormon history, I'm going to quote from this article on the subject instead of trying to paraphrase it: (By the way, the underlining is mine.)

The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior's sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ.

Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.

Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood Atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement-which was based on voluntary submission by an offender-into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.

(I'm going to need to divide my response into two separate posts, 'cause I'm so darned long-winded. )

Blood Atonement is not biblical. It smacks Jesus in the face. Why would He die for us if His perfect and precious blood was not 'more than enough'? The Bible teaches that Jesus' blood "cleanses us from all sin".
According to JS (Founder and 1st LDS prophet), BY (2nd and longest LDS prophet) and Joseph Fielding Smith (10th LDS prophet) Blood Atonement was real and necessary for salvation. And, only shedding of one's blood could save them. That is not biblical. Here is the LDS prophets own words-
1. "Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail?" (JFS- Doctrines of Salvation (DoS) 1:133)
2. "But 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 in his power lies-for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail." (DoS 1:134)
3. "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, that then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church." (DoS 1:135)
Bc JFS lived in a mostly modern world he tried, later on, to make this doctrine about murder and, therefore, justifiable. However, the passage states "sins" (more than one/murder) and it was taught by JS, himself, before 1845- long before the State of Utah became a state in 1896. I believe modern LDS will say or do anything to downplay many of their church's founding/early beliefs such as this one. You saw Katzpur try to wiggle around it.
4. "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it;" (BY- Discourses of Brigham Young (DBY) 385).
Look, if I were to look thru my files I could, probably, provide many more such teachings from numerous other leaders of the LDS Church on this. Mt opinion is if the LDS say something to you about their doctrines- past or present (especially past)- you will not hear the whole truth. You saw it with this post by Katzpur.

 

[Sonny]

That was a pretty ghastly read.

I haven't seen it yet (but I will). You can bet that you only heard the pro-LDS side which, imo, is less than half truth but whole lies. I'll reply to it so you'll know the truth and where to find it.