Salvation by the Shedding of Blood Part 2

In Part 1 we went over some of the Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices of blood sacrifice. If we understand the symbolic nature of blood, we will understand the nature of blood sacrifice. If we understand the nature of blood sacrifice, we will understand the repentance and atonement with God and our path to the East will be better illuminated thereby.

Blood is the perfect symbol for our mortal, corruptible state. Leviticus 17:11 reads, "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul." Note that it says "the life of flesh" because before we existed here, on this earth, in our frail, mortal forms, we existed. What we lacked was bodies, what we lacked was mortality and a temporary separation from God; all of which are necessary prerequisites to atonement.

Blood is peculiar to the condition of mortality and a symbol of corruptibility. When a body is embalmed, it is drained of blood, which is replaced with a preservative. In a similar vein, (sorry, couldn't resist) Brother Joseph Smith recorded from his vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ that they had bodies of flesh and bones (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) and that in their veins was a clear substance he called "spirit". Thus, the embalming process mirrors ascension.

We should also take into consideration the traditions about being ritually unclean. According to the Law, contact with blood or dead bodies or menstruating women etc. made one ritually unclean and unable to pray or worship. (Islam takes it a step further, contact with ANY woman makes a man unclean) This can be confusing when we talk about "being washed in the Blood" but I hope to clear things up.

Blood is the simplest, most distilled symbol for the mortal condition. Life is full of stuff-possessions, distractions, vices, hobbies, vocations, ideas etc. that while appealing to our eyes, are trivial and selfish. In order to come unto God we must set aside those things. It's tricky, because living in the world means we can't entirely forsake them either. What we need is a willingness to give up whatsoever is corruptible to gain the incorruptible, to gain atonement with God.

It takes faith, real faith, to sacrifice the things of this world in hope of a better one ruled by a merciful God. It is the faith made manifest unto God and ourselves through obeying the commandments and sacrifice which qualifies us for The Atonement. Jesus said "Not every man who saith unto me "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father." James 2:17-18 says that faith without works (sacrifice?) is dead and that faith is shown by works (sacrifice).

The final point I wish to hit before ending part 2 is the necessity of mortality in the Great Plan to bring souls to atonement with God. Theologians have lamented the Fall of Adam for millennia but I firmly believe that being cast out of the Garden, away from God and into this corrupt state was essential so that we could gain atonement with God. Otherwise there would be no way to show faith, no need to show faith and even no way to have faith. Without the Fall, there would be no need of reliance on Him.

Thank God for Eve.

Salvation by the Shedding of Blood Part 1

How is mankind to be saved? What is the path back to God?-these are questions put forth, and answers returned, in every religion. Ultimately, these are questions that every man and woman must wrestle with for themselves. The idea of blood sacrifice is infused in many ancient cultures and religions. The Chaldeans of Ur sacrificed virgins, Mayan kings blood-let from their phallus and Christians, not to be out done, declare that the blood sacrifice of one man was so powerful as to redeem the world. In my own personal ponderings I have tried to put the pieces together and I wish to share some thoughts with you, in the hope the reader finds something of value in their quest to the East.

The Jews of ancient Israel were famous for two things, strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the sacrifice of lambs. (also Idolatry) The Law of Moses had a couple hundred commandments and as long as you didn't break any of them, you were saved and returned to God. More knowledgeable scholars on Jewish ritual abound but, pretty much, once a year each family sacrificed one unblemished lamb (there were lots of requirements not important at the moment) to make up for that year's transgressions of the Law of that family. Similarly, once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest would bring forth two goats and cast lots. One, representing the Messiah, was killed so the other (representing the Israelites) could be set free.

Now by the time we get around to the New Testament, Judaism is a religion of rules and strict adherence to the rules. In order to makes sure the rules were followed new rules were made to provide a buffer zone around the "real" rules and then another layer was added around those. This is the problem with the Law, or a rule-based theology, one violation and you are toast (in more ways than one). Many look at this kind of system and reject it because they think there is more to God than rules. They are right.

If we really look at the Law of Moses, and how it was first practiced, it is clear there is a lot more going on there than a list of rules. How was the shedding of the blood of an animal making up for disobedience?

When Jesus of Nazareth knelt in the garden at Gethsemane to repent for the sins of the world scripture tells us he sweat great drops of blood. This scene played out again on the Cross, as his life blood was drained away. Part God and part man, he led an innocent life. He alone among all of mankind had no need of repentance, of atonement-for He was a God. Yet somehow, this ultimate act, this supreme blood sacrifice, gave him power over death and the power to wash away the sins of all mankind through His blood.

The point I wish to highlight is that sin, breaking the rules, is made ok by blood sacrifice. Atonement, becoming one with God, is accomplished by the sacrificial shedding of blood. Why?

To Bruce, at PETA

On Friday the VP of PETA came to BYU to debate about whether Vegetarianism should be a tenant of the LDS faith. I was questioned afterward as to how I would have responded. I am not going to take the time to outline PETA's case, I should be able to get to video of it soon and then I'll edit that in.

1. Vegetarianism not best nutritionally.
(U) PETA claims that Vegetarianism is by far the healthiest diet.
(L) If it isn't then a major tenant of PETA is invalidated.
(IL) If vegetarianism was then professional nutritionists wouldn't advise people to eat meat. I used to not eat meat for personal reasons but stopped because every nutritionist I have seen (quite a few) told me I should and I was suffering ill effects from it.
(!) PETA's position that no one should eat any meat is actually counter-nutritional.

2. Our bodies not meant to be Vegetarian.
(U) Following any human origin theory (Creationism, Evolution or genetically grown by aliens etc.) our bodies were designed to optimise survival. We have all purpose hands to make and use technology rather than claws and talons like animals do. We have enormous brain power to help us make shelter, tools, weapons etc. We have all kinds of natural instincts to help us, (procreation, fight or flight, security seeking) as well as ones that make us human (Love, altruism, guilt, compassion)
(L) Under Creationism our bodies were made this way by God and under Evolution by trial and error. On this Evolution theory, in the distant past, one branch of humans went for all meat, one for Vegetarianism and one for a hybrid. Under Alien Astronaut theory the SOB Anunnaki from the wandering planet Nibiru genetically made us this way so we would have miserable lives. (I am not making that up)
(IL) We have the teeth of omnivores, made for a diet of both meat and non-meat.
(!) If you believe in either of the two mainstream theories then forces far greater and wiser than us (God or Natural selection) want us to eat meat and vegetables. If you believe the third, don’t look now, but your tin foil hat is slipping.

3. Animal Cruelty.
(U) Lots of sad stuff needlessly happens to the animals we eat. Tons of bad stuff also needlessly happens to people. We need to decide how to spend our limited philanthropic resources.
(L) Human suffering is far more damaging to society than animal suffering as we see it and wonder if we will be next. Those living in the middle of it (pretty much anywhere in Africa) lose faith in humanity and lose their own humanity as they try to just survive.
(IL) While we should do something about the animals it is far more important to help other humans first. An animal just does not have the same worth as a human.
(!) Mass death, dehumanization and social decay.

4. Distribution, not food shortages the problem.
(U) PETA blamed world wide hunger on the meat industry, saying that there was not enough food production for meat eaters and the rest of the world. World hunger is wholly a distribution issue. Man-made famines are the norm in Africa and a lot of the time when there is a food supply problem men make it worse. Even in the Irish Potato Famine things would have been ok had not selfish distribution issues arisen. The most classic example of a man-made famine is Somalia in the early '90s. PETA even had the gall to blame this on the meat industry.
(L) Cross-apply my last argument about the destructiveness of human suffering and need to tackle human problems first.
(IL) As long as we refuse to acknowledge what the problem is we won't find a solution. All the food in the world is useless unless distributed.
(!) PETA's claim that food shortages are the problem when it's distribution prolongs the problem and delays the solution.

5. Even if the problem is shortages, US Agriculture policy the problem, not production capability.
(U) US agricultural polices have a great effect on production in the rest of the world.
(L) We can have a large impact by changing US policy.
(IL) We are hurting farming industry in developing countries. World wide food production is not at it's peak. With a policy change we could make more food.
(!) We should change farm policy if it really is a food shortage problem. A policy change could take effect overnight while slow conversion to Vegetarianism will take several years.

6. Even if mass Vegetarianism does increase food production eventually without policy changes the gains will be obliterated by governments keeping the prices up for their economies.
(U) We are not at production capacity now because of farm policies.
(L) If we free up more capability by vegetarianism the forces that keep us short of full production now will simply adjust.
(IL) We will have spent years wasting our efforts all while more needless deaths have occurred because we didn't look at what the real problem.
(!) Death, Famine, Dehumanization, disillusion with vegetarianism.

In closing, given a choice between telling people that world hunger is caused by a lack of production capability and leading them to think Vegetarianism will fix the problem when it won't and discussing the real problems to find real solutions that would save lives which is more ethical?