Example of a term in technical usage: Innocent blood.
Technical usage in a language is opposed to common-sense
usage. Common-sense usage is a fuzzy, family relationship type of meaning where
the purpose is to approximate, not to be precise. When there is a need to be
precise in order not to be misunderstood, technical language is introduced.
Technical language has an essence, a specifiable and precise core content of
meaning, which common-sense language does not have.
A good example of coding which represents technical usage
is found in the Book of Mormon usage of the phrase “innocent blood.” After
preaching his second witnessing to the wicked King Noah and his court, Abinadi
warns the king that though he is willing to die, should the king choose to kill
him the king will shed innocent blood. (Mosiah 17:10) Examination of the
scriptures shows that the word “innocent” means having no sin to one’s charge.
Thus we read in the Doctrine and Covenants: “Every spirit of man was innocent
in the beginning; and God having redeemed men from the fall, men became again,
in their infant state, innocent before God.” (D&C 93:38) I take this to
mean that though every spirit was innocent in the beginning, having no sin to
its charge. Being born under the curse of the fall of Adam would have caused
little children born into this life to be under the curse of sin were it not
that the Savior prepared a redemption from the fall and thus every person is
innocent or guilty according to his or her own sins and not because of Adam’s
transgression.
But being innocent, either not having sinned or having
been forgiven of one’s sins, does not of itself create the technical matter
know as “innocent blood.” The repentant people of Ammonihah were burned by the
wicked inhabitants of that city. Alma notes that in burning them the people of
Ammonihah were bringing upon themselves the “blood of the innocent.” Those who
burned others were guilty of murder, and would have to answer for that. But
there is no suggestion that they were shedding innocent blood.
It is in D&C 132 that the key is given to know how
and why Abinadi’s blood was innocent blood whereas the blood of the repentant
women and children of Ammonihah was the blood of the innocent. The phrase is
used repeatedly which says: “if ye abide in my covenant and commit no murder
whereby to shed innocent blood.” (D&C 132:19) This introduces the idea that
the shedding of innocent blood pertains to the New and Everlasting Covenant and
to it only. A later verse then clarifies the matter. “The blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is
in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my
death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord
God.” (D&C 132:27)
The sum of the matter is then that innocent blood is the
blood of Christ or his personal priesthood representative who has been sent to
other covenant servants of Christ. Abinadi was sent by God to call Noah and his
courtiers to repentance. In slaying him, they in effect slew the Savior
himself, and that after having partaken of the New and Everlasting Covenant and
pretending to administer and to teach it. For this there can be no forgiveness
of sins, either in this world or the next. The case of the wicked people of
Ammonihah was different. They had explicitly rejected the New and Everlasting
Covenant and were not bound by it. The murders they committed were indeed laid
to their charge, but they were not charged with deliberate murder of the
Savior. There is murder, and then there is murder whereby one sheds innocent
blood.
In another passage of the Book of Mormon, the father of
King Lamoni uses the term innocent blood mistakenly. Ammon has just warned the
old king that should he slay his son, he would be killing an innocent man, for
Lamoni had repented and had been forgiven of his sins. The old king replies: “I
know that if I should slay my son I should shed innocent blood; for it is thou
that has sought to destroy him.” This usage is understandable, but does not
qualify as a technical usage of the term innocent blood, for the king had not
yet received the New and everlasting Covenant, nor did his son preside over him
in priesthood authority. Therefore had the old king killed his son he also
would have been shedding the blood of the innocent. (Chauncy C. Riddle, “Code
Language in the Book of Mormon,” January 1, 1992)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
