Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Finrock »

Mark wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Mark wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Mark,

Please consider the following-

Special Pleading Fallacy:

Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... l-Pleading" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

You are criticizing Amonhi and Elliaison for spiritual elitism and superiority while in the same breath you testify of the same for your special group, namely the President and Prophet of the Church and the Apostles. The same criticism that you are using against Amonhi and Elliaison can in reality be used against Thomas S. Monson the the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Put aside your emotional beliefs for a moment and just view this objectively. I don't criticize you for having emotional beliefs, but, you have to recognize the irony and hypocrisy in your position.

You are denying one small group the privilege of being able to receive revelation and direction from God for all of God's children, and calling it spiritual elitism and superiority complex, while your small group of individuals that you support apparently have a special exception, presumably because you believe in this small group and because you believe in it, it must be able to receive revelation and direction from God for all of God's children and they are not spiritual elitist nor do they have a superiority complex.

Can you please explain rationally why your small group is the exception to your criticism? In other words, why doesn't your criticism apply to your group?

-Finrock

If you haven't figured that out by now after having read all the scriptures and revelations and words from the Prophet Joseph and many other LDS Prophets and Apostles I can't help you Brother. How did the Lord protect His Saints from the deceptive and false voices who were declaring to them revelations outside of His Priesthood channels He had set up? Please go read the Doctrine & Covenants and see how the Lord Himself instructed the Saints that the revelations of Diety for the benefit of mankind needed to be received and transmitted for their benefit and all Gods children who would listen. Start with the first part of Section 43 and then look up the multiple accounts where the Lord insturcted the Saints at the time of the restoration of this dispensation how Priesthood Govt and order was used in relaying revelation to his children. Section 42 is another good section to read. Look at verse 11. I don't remember the Lord stating that He would authorize and appoint some anonymous obscure internet "prophets" like Amonhi or Elliaison (whatever or whoever that is) to speak in his behalf for the benefit of his children in revealing and clarifying doctrine. Think this through Brother...
I get all of that and I don't even disagree. It's just the irony, Mark. The hypocrisy. Can't you see it? Can't you see that you are saying, Hey, you are elitist and why would God reveal things for the whole world to this small special group, but you yourself accept the fact that God is, relatively speaking, revealing things to just a small special group, the LDS Apostles. Do you know that relative to the world, that we are obscure? We are but a small drop in the bucket and the vast majority of the world have never heard of us or will never hear, accept, or have anything to do with our prophets. They could and many would say the same thing to us, yet, you would justify in your mind how the criticism you just applied to Amonhi doesn't apply to you.

I hope you can recognize, Mark, that I am trying to be as fair as possible and to apply universal principles in all situations and not just when it favors my team or abandon or make excuses for principles when it doesn't favor my team. I believe that is the right way to live. See, what happens, though, is that I sometimes have to acknowledge negative things about my group that I belong to. And there are people like you, who are just about the team. At least that is what it seems like to me. It seems to me that you are a principled man as long as it doesn't reflect poorly on the team or things apply to others, but they don't apply to your team. I can't live that way and so you judge me to be not thinking things through, when in fact, I'm thinking them through very thoroughly and applying principles and standards of truth across the board. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Or what applies to one group, applies to another group, unless these is some reasonable exception.

So, can you justify your special pleading? You might be able to. I sure can't. I know I'm special pleading, but I can't justify it at the moment.

-Finrock

I'm curious Finrock. Did you ever serve as a full time missionary for the church? If so did you testify of the truthfulness of the restoration and the mission of the Prophet Joseph? Did it make you feel uncomfortable to declare that the church was as it purports the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth to people who loved their own church? How about Gods ordained Prophet? Were you uncomfortable testifying that The Lord spoke thru him for the benefit of all His children? What if someone liked their own priest or pastor? Did you feel hypocritical declaring that the LDS church had the Priesthood of God and was the only organization authorized by the Lord to perform the saving ordinances for all mankind? What about people who believed their baptism they had previously received in their own faith was sufficient and recognized by God as valid and complete? Did you apologize for making such bold declarations to people who believed differently? Did you favor your "team"?

Was that hypocritical of you not to be fair and balanced and just accept that it didn't matter what faith you belonged to as long as you believed in God? I hope you get what I am saying here. Amonhi is proposing things that are contrary to the revealed word of the Lord thru His Prophets. Does it make me a hypocrite to call him on his opposing viewpoints and declare that they are not in harmony with LDS doctrine and practices when he claims to be a Prophet himself?
Were those rhetorical questions or did you want actual responses? If you are sincere, I will sincerely answer.

-Finrock

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock
What else would have compelled stake presidents, bishops, tbms, to slaughter men women and children passing through UT to get to CA, if it weren't for BA doctrine?

When Hinckley renovated the MMM monument they hit skeletal remains of some children that had holes in their skulls from bullets that indicate they were killed execution style, on their knees begging for mercy. We use old journals/diaries in church history, but only those of the ones that acquiesced to everything the past leaders did. There is much more out there, but with the culture of unwavering loyalty ( the very thing that contributed to MMM), members chalk it up (anything that isnt approved by the correlation commitee) to anti-mormon lies instead of renoucing MMM.
Last edited by Rachael on January 16th, 2017, 1:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

Mark wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock

Good luck with that one Finrock. Rachael's perception of ill doings coming from church leadership has become her reality. Even if there no absolutely no evidence or facts to back up her allegations. Those who love to attack the church or its Prophets use this method often because they are driven to throw barbs. Such is the case with Rachael when it comes to all things Brigham Young. Her glass is totally empty.
(-|

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

gclayjr wrote:Finrock,
Another false accusation and assertion. I believe in the Church and what is taught there.
yet you refute
We have a prophet living on the earth today. This prophet is the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He has the right to revelation for the entire Church. He holds “the keys of the kingdom,” meaning that he has the authority to direct the entire Church and kingdom of God on earth, including the administration of priesthood ordinances (see Matthew 16:19). No person except the chosen prophet and President can receive God’s will for the entire membership of the Church. The Lord said, “There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred” (D&C 132:7). The President of the Church is assisted by his counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve, who are also prophets, seers, and revelators.

We should do those things the prophets tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray:
Mark defends this teaching. You call him a hypocrite.

I do understand why you don't want to address my question regarding your definition of hypocrite.

No problem. I Didn't expect an honest, coherent answer anyway.

Regards,

George Clay
WW issued a Manifesto to end polygamy, and in that Manifesto, he added that little gem that a prophet can never lead the church astray. Then he sanctioned plural marriages there after for certain members, and took another wife himself. 14 years later, JFS had to issue a SECOND Manifesto (which was not canonized) after WW died But you want to call Finrock a hypocrite? Your reasoning and Mark's reasoning seems to be dishonest and incoherent, not Finrock's.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by gclayjr »

Rachael,
WW issued a Manifesto to end polygamy, and in that Manifesto, he added that little gem that a prophet can never lead the church astray. Then he sanctioned plural marriages there after for certain members, and took another wife himself. 14 years later, JFS had to issue a SECOND Manifesto (which was not canonized) after WW died But you want to call Finrock a hypocrite? Your reasoning and Mark's reasoning seems to be dishonest and incoherent, not Finrock's.
Rachael. Do you have the same problem with English as Finrock? I haven't been following your posts.

You obviously Don't believe that the church is true and lead by the true prophet of God. You don't believe that God will only reveal new truths pertaining to the World, and the church through his anointed prophet.

Since I don't follow your posts, I don't know if you are open and clear about it, which if true, would mean that we don't agree, but you are NOT a hypocrite. Or do you play endless word games claiming
Another false accusation and assertion. I believe in the Church and what is taught there.
as did Finrock?

The dictionary definition of Hypocrisy is:
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
What FInrock (and you) criticize Mark and me for is continually (mindlessly) standing up for those truths professed by the LDS church and their leaders, that you think are false.

Your problem is not with either Mark or me, it is either with the English language, or your own hypocrisy. Which is it?

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Mark »

Rachael wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock
What else would have compelled stake presidents, bishops, tbms, to slaughter men women and children passing through UT to get to CA, if it weren't for BA doctrine?

When Hinckley renovated the MMM monument they hit skeletal remains of some children that had holes in their skulls from bullets that indicate they were killed execution style, on their knees begging for mercy. We use old journals/diaries in church history, but only those of the ones that acquiesced to everything the past leaders did. There is much more out there, but with the culture of unwavering loyalty ( the very thing that contributed to MMM), members chalk it up (anything that isnt approved by the correlation commitee) to anti-mormon lies instead of renoucing MMM.

If you bother to read the history behind the MMM you will find out what compelled these men to do what they did. It most certainly had nothing to do with Brigham Youngs teachings about blood atonement. Get the facts and exercise intellectual honesty here instead of trying to implicate and blame Brigham Young for the actions of a few conspiring men who were not following the tenants of the gospel in their plans. Brigham Young clearly did not authorize or approve of what occurred there. To say he did is a fabrication and distortion of the facts.


https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the- ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

gclayjr wrote:Rachael,
WW issued a Manifesto to end polygamy, and in that Manifesto, he added that little gem that a prophet can never lead the church astray. Then he sanctioned plural marriages there after for certain members, and took another wife himself. 14 years later, JFS had to issue a SECOND Manifesto (which was not canonized) after WW died But you want to call Finrock a hypocrite? Your reasoning and Mark's reasoning seems to be dishonest and incoherent, not Finrock's.
Rachael. Do you have the same problem with English as Finrock? I haven't been following your posts.

You obviously Don't believe that the church is true and lead by the true prophet of God. You don't believe that God will only reveal new truths pertaining to the World, and the church through his anointed prophet.

Since I don't follow your posts, I don't know if you are open and clear about it, which if true, would mean that we don't agree, but you are NOT a hypocrite. Or do you play endless word games claiming
Another false accusation and assertion. I believe in the Church and what is taught there.
as did Finrock?

The dictionary definition of Hypocrisy is:
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
What FInrock (and you) criticize Mark and me for is continually (mindlessly) standing up for those truths professed by the LDS church and their leaders, that you think are false.

Your problem is not with either Mark or me, it is either with the English language, or your own hypocrisy. Which is it?

Regards,

George Clay

OK, you want to play grammar police and imply I'm a hypocrite. That's fine. I'm not gonna be meticulous about grammar and spelling on a discussion forum. I make grammatical and spelling errors regularly, but I ASSumed the readers here can decipher what I tried to state. Maybe I am wrong for that.

But you eloquently articulated I have a problem with English and/or being a hypocrite. I'll own both.

But that's not my problem. You have a problem with seeking truth and the others who are.

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

Mark wrote:
Rachael wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock
What else would have compelled stake presidents, bishops, tbms, to slaughter men women and children passing through UT to get to CA, if it weren't for BA doctrine?

When Hinckley renovated the MMM monument they hit skeletal remains of some children that had holes in their skulls from bullets that indicate they were killed execution style, on their knees begging for mercy. We use old journals/diaries in church history, but only those of the ones that acquiesced to everything the past leaders did. There is much more out there, but with the culture of unwavering loyalty ( the very thing that contributed to MMM), members chalk it up (anything that isnt approved by the correlation commitee) to anti-mormon lies instead of renoucing MMM.

If you bother to read the history behind the MMM you will find out what compelled these men to do what they did. It most certainly had nothing to do with Brigham Youngs teachings about blood atonement. Get the facts and exercise intellectual honesty here instead of trying to implicate and blame Brigham Young for the actions of a few conspiring men who were not following the tenants of the gospel in their plans. Brigham Young clearly did not authorize or approve of what occurred there. To say he did is a fabrication and distortion of the facts.


https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the- ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you bother to read the history behind the MMM you will find out what compelled these men to do what they did. It most certainly had everything to do with Brigham Youngs teachings about blood atonement. Get the facts and exercise intellectual honesty here that implicate and blame Brigham Young for the actions of a few conspiring men who were following the tenants of the gospel in their plans. Brigham Young clearly did authorize or approve of what occurred there. To say he did not is a fabrication and distortion of the facts.

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Mark »

Rachael wrote:
Mark wrote:
Rachael wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock
What else would have compelled stake presidents, bishops, tbms, to slaughter men women and children passing through UT to get to CA, if it weren't for BA doctrine?

When Hinckley renovated the MMM monument they hit skeletal remains of some children that had holes in their skulls from bullets that indicate they were killed execution style, on their knees begging for mercy. We use old journals/diaries in church history, but only those of the ones that acquiesced to everything the past leaders did. There is much more out there, but with the culture of unwavering loyalty ( the very thing that contributed to MMM), members chalk it up (anything that isnt approved by the correlation commitee) to anti-mormon lies instead of renoucing MMM.

If you bother to read the history behind the MMM you will find out what compelled these men to do what they did. It most certainly had nothing to do with Brigham Youngs teachings about blood atonement. Get the facts and exercise intellectual honesty here instead of trying to implicate and blame Brigham Young for the actions of a few conspiring men who were not following the tenants of the gospel in their plans. Brigham Young clearly did not authorize or approve of what occurred there. To say he did is a fabrication and distortion of the facts.


https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the- ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you bother to read the history behind the MMM you will find out what compelled these men to do what they did. It most certainly had everything to do with Brigham Youngs teachings about blood atonement. Get the facts and exercise intellectual honesty here that implicate and blame Brigham Young for the actions of a few conspiring men who were following the tenants of the gospel in their plans. Brigham Young clearly did authorize or approve of what occurred there. To say he did not is a fabrication and distortion of the facts.

Bearing false witness against a Prophet of the Lord is a no no Sister. You do not have one shread of evidence showing that Brigham Young authorized and approved of this terrible event. Not one. Read the article I posted and either rebut it with solid facts or admit your wrong if you have any integrity.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by inho »

Rachael wrote:It most certainly had everything to do with Brigham Youngs teachings about blood atonement.
I agree, the blood atonement teachings and the general conditions of the so-called Mormon Reformation must have had an impact on the people of Cedar City.
Rachael wrote: Brigham Young clearly did authorize or approve of what occurred there. To say he did not is a fabrication and distortion of the facts.
Show us the facts, give us references. I haven't been able to find any definitive evidence that BY authorized MMM.

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

There isn't any "definitive" evidence for much of the past, including MMM, except strong circumstantial evidence, skeletal remaims, and testimonies left in writing by eyewitnesses who lived through BY's 'reformation' era. John D. Lee for one, who was scapegoated for the whole atrocity.

So if you want to deny BY's 'reformation' era didn't happen, and deny that blood oaths didn't occur in the temples to make the oath to avenge the blood of church leaders killed by 'gentiles', that the JoD doesnt have plenty of BA doctrine, and etc., that is your intellectual honesty at stake, not mine.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by gclayjr »

ou "free" thinkers out thereRachael,
OK, you want to play grammar police and imply I'm a hypocrite. That's fine. I'm not gonna be meticulous about grammar and spelling on a discussion forum. I make grammatical and spelling errors regularly, but I ASSumed the readers here can decipher what I tried to state. Maybe I am wrong for that.

But you eloquently articulated I have a problem with English and/or being a hypocrite. I'll own both.

But that's not my problem. You have a problem with seeking truth and the others who are.
It is not a matter of my being the grammar police. I make many such mistakes also, but I try and proofread what I write and edit it to make sure that what I am saying is what I mean.

How many conflicts, including the insults you guys throw out regularly to TBMs are based on misunderstandings of what one is actually trying to say. I know that you "free thinkers" think that you have found out how the church is corrupt in one way or another and are trying to explain what us TBM fools don't see. Interestingly, while you all are very aggressive in your insults of the Church, leaders, and TBMs (Such as accusing Mark of Intellectual dishonesty), you are the first to get your "panties in a twist" if someone response strongly to the "logic" you put forth.

Contrary to what I am accused of, I actually honestly try to figure out if there is substance to your accusations. I am not a mind reader. The only thing I have to go on is what you guys write down. It looks like you all are trying to use subtle nuances to bend accepted beliefs to your accusatory beliefs.

So when I point out that what is written makes no sense, I am accused of attacking and playing word games, (Although I still don't understand the righteousness of your own innuendos and insults).

So a thought question. How much of all of this back in forth is because people don't write down what they mean. Then when people read what is written down, they think you mean what you say, and respond to that rather than what you meant to say but didn't?

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by gclayjr »

Finrock, Amonhi, Rachael,

I had another thought about why you feel so self righteous in the insulting things you say, then get your "Panties in a twist" when someone responds back with a criticism.

Could it be that you all think that if you say "You are intellectually dishonest", that that is reasonable intercourse, but if I respond back with "You are a Liar", that is insulting?

Maybe my problem is cultural. Coming form a redneck, white trash background, I am more accustomed to saying it clearly and simply rather than packaging it up in nice words.

Regards,

George Clay

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Finrock »

Rachael wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock
What else would have compelled stake presidents, bishops, tbms, to slaughter men women and children passing through UT to get to CA, if it weren't for BA doctrine?

When Hinckley renovated the MMM monument they hit skeletal remains of some children that had holes in their skulls from bullets that indicate they were killed execution style, on their knees begging for mercy. We use old journals/diaries in church history, but only those of the ones that acquiesced to everything the past leaders did. There is much more out there, but with the culture of unwavering loyalty ( the very thing that contributed to MMM), members chalk it up (anything that isnt approved by the correlation commitee) to anti-mormon lies instead of renoucing MMM.
Rachel,

I would appreciate if you would provide more than just conjecture, assumptions, and bias in your responses. If what you say is true, you should be able to provide some historical evidence, something to substantiate it.

I can think of several things off the top of my head that would have compelled those people to slaughter men, women, and children.

The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others. Further, you have to show some connection between that event and BA, other than "what else would have compelled..." That isn't a very strong argument. The reason why I'm asking you to substantiate your assertions are manifold:

1. Its the right/just/fair thing to do (Imagine if you were on the receiving end of judgment. How would you want those judging and accusing you to go about doing it? Utilize the Golden Rule or even the Platinum Rule).
2. I'm interested in actually learning and understanding real historical data and truth
3. I can be convinced that I am in error, but not through conjecture, bias, or assumptions

-Finrock

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Finrock »

gclayjr wrote:Finrock, Amonhi, Rachael,

I had another thought about why you feel so self righteous in the insulting things you say, then get your "Panties in a twist" when someone responds back with a criticism.

Could it be that you all think that if you say "You are intellectually dishonest", that that is reasonable intercourse, but if I respond back with "You are a Liar", that is insulting?

Maybe my problem is cultural. Coming form a redneck, white trash background, I am more accustomed to saying it clearly and simply rather than packaging it up in nice words.

Regards,

George Clay
Did you have another thought as to why I beat my wife and children too? :))

Oh, I forgot to add this... 8-|

-Finrock

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by ajax »

Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock
What else would have compelled stake presidents, bishops, tbms, to slaughter men women and children passing through UT to get to CA, if it weren't for BA doctrine?

When Hinckley renovated the MMM monument they hit skeletal remains of some children that had holes in their skulls from bullets that indicate they were killed execution style, on their knees begging for mercy. We use old journals/diaries in church history, but only those of the ones that acquiesced to everything the past leaders did. There is much more out there, but with the culture of unwavering loyalty ( the very thing that contributed to MMM), members chalk it up (anything that isnt approved by the correlation commitee) to anti-mormon lies instead of renoucing MMM.
Rachel,

I would appreciate if you would provide more than just conjecture, assumptions, and bias in your responses. If what you say is true, you should be able to provide some historical evidence, something to substantiate it.

I can think of several things off the top of my head that would have compelled those people to slaughter men, women, and children.

The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others. Further, you have to show some connection between that event and BA, other than "what else would have compelled..." That isn't a very strong argument. The reason why I'm asking you to substantiate your assertions are manifold:

1. Its the right/just/fair thing to do (Imagine if you were on the receiving end of judgment. How would you want those judging and accusing you to go about doing it? Utilize the Golden Rule or even the Platinum Rule).
2. I'm interested in actually learning and understanding real historical data and truth
3. I can be convinced that I am in error, but not through conjecture, bias, or assumptions

-Finrock
I think it's pretty clear that an incendiary environment was created that needed a spark

1) Mormon reformation (1856-1857) called for greater obedience
2) Blood Atonement taught (rightly or wrongly understood)
3) Oath of vengeance in temples - participants vowed to avenge Joseph and Hyrum's deaths
4) Parley P Pratt had just been killed in Arkansas
5) Rumors that the wagon train from Arkansas bragged about participating in the murders of JS.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Finrock »

ajax wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock
What else would have compelled stake presidents, bishops, tbms, to slaughter men women and children passing through UT to get to CA, if it weren't for BA doctrine?

When Hinckley renovated the MMM monument they hit skeletal remains of some children that had holes in their skulls from bullets that indicate they were killed execution style, on their knees begging for mercy. We use old journals/diaries in church history, but only those of the ones that acquiesced to everything the past leaders did. There is much more out there, but with the culture of unwavering loyalty ( the very thing that contributed to MMM), members chalk it up (anything that isnt approved by the correlation commitee) to anti-mormon lies instead of renoucing MMM.
Rachel,

I would appreciate if you would provide more than just conjecture, assumptions, and bias in your responses. If what you say is true, you should be able to provide some historical evidence, something to substantiate it.

I can think of several things off the top of my head that would have compelled those people to slaughter men, women, and children.

The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others. Further, you have to show some connection between that event and BA, other than "what else would have compelled..." That isn't a very strong argument. The reason why I'm asking you to substantiate your assertions are manifold:

1. Its the right/just/fair thing to do (Imagine if you were on the receiving end of judgment. How would you want those judging and accusing you to go about doing it? Utilize the Golden Rule or even the Platinum Rule).
2. I'm interested in actually learning and understanding real historical data and truth
3. I can be convinced that I am in error, but not through conjecture, bias, or assumptions

-Finrock
I think it's pretty clear that an incendiary environment was created that needed a spark

1) Mormon reformation (1856-1857) called for greater obedience
2) Blood Atonement taught (rightly or wrongly understood)
3) Oath of vengeance in temples - participants vowed to avenge Joseph and Hyrum's deaths
4) Parley P Pratt had just been killed in Arkansas
5) Rumors that the wagon train from Arkansas bragged about participating in the murders of JS.
Thanks, Ajax. I'm admittedly not very familiar with this area of our history. I've done some basic research but not delved in to it. I'm genuinely interested in learning more. Can you provide a reference to point 3?

-Finrock

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by ajax »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_v ... ite_note-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 102_87.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Mark »

Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock
What else would have compelled stake presidents, bishops, tbms, to slaughter men women and children passing through UT to get to CA, if it weren't for BA doctrine?

When Hinckley renovated the MMM monument they hit skeletal remains of some children that had holes in their skulls from bullets that indicate they were killed execution style, on their knees begging for mercy. We use old journals/diaries in church history, but only those of the ones that acquiesced to everything the past leaders did. There is much more out there, but with the culture of unwavering loyalty ( the very thing that contributed to MMM), members chalk it up (anything that isnt approved by the correlation commitee) to anti-mormon lies instead of renoucing MMM.
Rachel,

I would appreciate if you would provide more than just conjecture, assumptions, and bias in your responses. If what you say is true, you should be able to provide some historical evidence, something to substantiate it.

I can think of several things off the top of my head that would have compelled those people to slaughter men, women, and children.

The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others. Further, you have to show some connection between that event and BA, other than "what else would have compelled..." That isn't a very strong argument. The reason why I'm asking you to substantiate your assertions are manifold:

1. Its the right/just/fair thing to do (Imagine if you were on the receiving end of judgment. How would you want those judging and accusing you to go about doing it? Utilize the Golden Rule or even the Platinum Rule).
2. I'm interested in actually learning and understanding real historical data and truth
3. I can be convinced that I am in error, but not through conjecture, bias, or assumptions

-Finrock
Right on Finrock! I just might put you back in the will after all. ;) You and I both know Rachael is just venting on Brigham Young because she cant stand Brigham Young. She has no evidence to back her bias and gossip here. Only conjecture and confirmation bias and assumption. There is however concrete documented evidence that Brigham Young would not have approved of what went on in this massacre. I presented it by showing Turleys well founded research. Rachael cant refute it because she has nothing to refute it with. Just some distasteful character assassination going on here. :-ss

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Rachael wrote:It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.
Can you please provide evidence that innocent people were murdered because of this doctrine? I understand you are giving MMM as an example, but your statement requires that you demonstrate that the MMM was a result of people believing in BA and that this was a contributing factor or cause to it (which, at the moment doesn't make sense to me because BA was not about another person killing you, but the doctrine was about you killing yourself). I would appreciate more than just your assertion. I would like for you to provide the historical data that you used to draw this conclusion.

Thank you!

-Finrock
What else would have compelled stake presidents, bishops, tbms, to slaughter men women and children passing through UT to get to CA, if it weren't for BA doctrine?

When Hinckley renovated the MMM monument they hit skeletal remains of some children that had holes in their skulls from bullets that indicate they were killed execution style, on their knees begging for mercy. We use old journals/diaries in church history, but only those of the ones that acquiesced to everything the past leaders did. There is much more out there, but with the culture of unwavering loyalty ( the very thing that contributed to MMM), members chalk it up (anything that isnt approved by the correlation commitee) to anti-mormon lies instead of renoucing MMM.
Rachel,

I would appreciate if you would provide more than just conjecture, assumptions, and bias in your responses. If what you say is true, you should be able to provide some historical evidence, something to substantiate it.

I can think of several things off the top of my head that would have compelled those people to slaughter men, women, and children.

The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others. Further, you have to show some connection between that event and BA, other than "what else would have compelled..." That isn't a very strong argument. The reason why I'm asking you to substantiate your assertions are manifold:

1. Its the right/just/fair thing to do (Imagine if you were on the receiving end of judgment. How would you want those judging and accusing you to go about doing it? Utilize the Golden Rule or even the Platinum Rule).
2. I'm interested in actually learning and understanding real historical data and truth
3. I can be convinced that I am in error, but not through conjecture, bias, or assumptions

-Finrock
Finrock wrote: I would appreciate if you would provide more than just conjecture, assumptions, and bias in your responses. If what you say is true, you should be able to provide some historical evidence, something to substantiate it.

I can think of several things off the top of my head that would have compelled those people to slaughter men, women, and children.

The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others. Further, you have to show some connection between that event and BA, other than "what else would have compelled..." That isn't a very strong argument. The reason why I'm asking you to substantiate your assertions are manifold:

1. Its the right/just/fair thing to do (Imagine if you were on the receiving end of judgment. How would you want those judging and accusing you to go about doing it? Utilize the Golden Rule or even the Platinum Rule).
2. I'm interested in actually learning and understanding real historical data and truth
3. I can be convinced that I am in error, but not through conjecture, bias, or assumptions

-Finrock
Finrock, BA doctrine was not just about killing yourself. Sure, one could submit to it, if the person felt his/her sin was too great that the blood of Christ's Atonement wasn't sufficient to cover it, so your own blood must be added to it (which is blasphemous), but it was also practiced on unwilling participants in order to 'save' them. I will have to dig up Journal of Discourses quotes for that, but you can do just it as well as I can, or you want to see. BY''s quote after seeing the monument the 'gentiles' had erected on behalf of the MMM vicstims, was reprehensible. The monument was a conical pile of stones with a cross on it with the inscription "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord," but BY said it should say "Vengeance is mine, and I have taken a little." He didn't add the Lord's name to it at least. There was no remorse, nor repentance for it.

There many quotes on BA in the JODs on Gospel link, and elsewhere, diaries,/journals, books, etc, of eyewitnesses' accounts, if you want to research it. If you don't want to, OK. I have. But I failed to record every reference to make a citation page to present to you.

It is complex, and I can present my synopsis, but to do so would would require too lengthy a post, that would be ignored because of the lengthiness, or if it was done concisely, it would be ignored because it was not refererenced sufficiency.
Last edited by Rachael on January 19th, 2017, 9:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

inho wrote:
Rachael wrote:It most certainly had everything to do with Brigham Youngs teachings about blood atonement.
I agree, the blood atonement teachings and the general conditions of the so-called Mormon Reformation must have had an impact on the people of Cedar City.
Rachael wrote: Brigham Young clearly did authorize or approve of what occurred there. To say he did not is a fabrication and distortion of the facts.
Show us the facts, give us references. I haven't been able to find any definitive evidence that BY authorized MMM.
Go seek, and ye will find.

How in the world can anything after a 150 years+ later gonna reveal definitive anything when BY was in control of written history?

Deductive reasoning, since we don't have footage of what happened. But even using Occam's razor, you've dulled the blade thinking BY didn't know. His communication abilities rivaled the telegraph. And no, I'm not looking up the reference for you either. But BY set up a pony express--like communication system from SLC.

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

We had a new branch president. It was like an old western movie, where the new sheriff rides into town to clean it it up. I wasn't a murderer/bank robber (tho my sin is considered next to murder according to the Miracle if you get Forgiveness) or on some 'wanted dead or alive' poster., In fact, I had brought a new life into existence. Just not in the legitimate way.So that equated to a spiritual hanging. Unless I eventually saved myself spiritually while still living temporally by doing a bunch of works to mete sufficiant repentance that this branch president decided on. And I eventually did. Took twenty years. Took a few more to realize Jesus Christ is my final judge.

Edit: the post I responded to has been deleted I suppose.
Last edited by Rachael on January 20th, 2017, 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by gclayjr »

Rachael,
You insult the principle of freethinking, but you present yourself as an intellectual sort. Most everything I quoted from has come from LDS.org/essays, JoD, manuals, Ensign, Conference talks, or Church History. The rest is from wiki or my personal, anecdotal accounts from personal experiences.. Sometimes books that are not approved by the Church, usuallly, if the footnotes come from LDS approved sources.

The leaders are the ones who are aggressive. Thus an STCMC exists. When I was ex'd for having a child out of wedlock almost 30 yes ago, I hadn't been to church in 4 years, at the least. I lived over 25 miles away from this branch. I wasn't bothering or influencing anybody there. But they found me, served me my summons, then codemned me spiritually to the second death, and gave me a parting gift of SWK's "Miracle if You Can Be Forgiven.". I came back finally, to a spiritually dead , ridgidly ran, church. At least back in the day, there were some familiar spirits at least. But I claim no righteousness. If you want to, cuz you're a good tbm, go ahead. No one is righteous and good, except GOD.
You misunderstand what I mean, and other's mean about being a tbm. We don't think we are any better than others. We all have sinned, and while I don't see any need to confess mine here, I make no claim that they are any less than yours or anybody else's.

The difference is that those of us who position ourselves as TBMs recognize that the problem is with us and not the Church and leaders. We don't spend our days weeding through every document to discover what we perceive to flaws in either doctrine or our general authorities. We do recognize that they are Men, with flaws, and that not every word they wrote is from God's mouth to paper.

My point is that you guys get so fanatical and vicious that you don't recognize the inherent flaws in your own reasoning. You have the bit in your mouth so tight, that if those of us who are not caught up in the endless fault finding point out errors in your logic, conclusions or sources, you take it personal.

I do find it interesting that you all seem to think that your personal attacks towards, our church, our leaders, and us, is intellectual discourse, but as soon as we refute your claims, it becomes personal attacks. I don't get my panties in a twist when someone attacks me. I just point out those attacks, in conjunction with the whining to show the hypocrisy in your whining.

By the way, I grew up in the Finger Lakes Region in New York, in the 50's and 60's in a branch that was so small , that my current house is bigger than our meeting house was. My brother is currently a branch president in a branch in West Virginia. I do know that that life in a branch can be quite different than in a ward. There are many fewer people, who have less contact with that Brotherhood, and knowledge that is available in larger congregations. It does lead to weaker leadership, and more strange behaviors and heresies than you would find elsewhere. I am sorry for any harm you have received as a result of this.

However, that should inspire you to grasp the iron rod tighter, and look for more wisdom to help you coming from our general authorities, rather than chasing after jots and tittles of "evidence' to justify demeaning them, and hence not being able to see the wisdom they brought to us from the Holy Spirit, as Prophet Seers and revelators.


Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

gclayjr wrote:Rachael,
You insult the principle of freethinking, but you present yourself as an intellectual sort. Most everything I quoted from has come from LDS.org/essays, JoD, manuals, Ensign, Conference talks, or Church History. The rest is from wiki or my personal, anecdotal accounts from personal experiences.. Sometimes books that are not approved by the Church, usuallly, if the footnotes come from LDS approved sources.

The leaders are the ones who are aggressive. Thus an STCMC exists. When I was ex'd for having a child out of wedlock almost 30 yes ago, I hadn't been to church in 4 years, at the least. I lived over 25 miles away from this branch. I wasn't bothering or influencing anybody there. But they found me, served me my summons, then codemned me spiritually to the second death, and gave me a parting gift of SWK's "Miracle if You Can Be Forgiven.". I came back finally, to a spiritually dead , ridgidly ran, church. At least back in the day, there were some familiar spirits at least. But I claim no righteousness. If you want to, cuz you're a good tbm, go ahead. No one is righteous and good, except GOD.
You misunderstand what I mean, and other's mean about being a tbm. We don't think we are any better than others. We all have sinned, and while I don't see any need to confess mine here, I make no claim that they are any less than yours or anybody else's.

The difference is that those of us who position ourselves as TBMs recognize that the problem is with us and not the Church and leaders. We don't spend our days weeding through every document to discover what we perceive to flaws in either doctrine or our general authorities. We do recognize that they are Men, with flaws, and that not every word they wrote is from God's mouth to paper.

My point is that you guys get so fanatical and vicious that you don't recognize the inherent flaws in your own reasoning. You have the bit in your mouth so tight, that if those of us who are not caught up in the endless fault finding point out errors in your logic, conclusions or sources, you take it personal.

I do find it interesting that you all seem to think that your personal attacks towards, our church, our leaders, and us, is intellectual discourse, but as soon as we refute your claims, it becomes personal attacks. I don't get my panties in a twist when someone attacks me. I just point out those attacks, in conjunction with the whining to show the hypocrisy in your whining.

By the way, I grew up in the Finger Lakes Region in New York, in the 50's and 60's in a branch that was so small , that my current house is bigger than our meeting house was. My brother is currently a branch president in a branch in West Virginia. I do know that that life in a branch can be quite different than in a ward. There are many fewer people, who have less contact with that Brotherhood, and knowledge that is available in larger congregations. It does lead to weaker leadership, and more strange behaviors and heresies than you would find elsewhere. I am sorry for any harm you have received as a result of this.

However, that should inspire you to grasp the iron rod tighter, and look for more wisdom to help you coming from our general authorities, rather than chasing after jots and tittles of "evidence' to justify demeaning them, and hence not being able to see the wisdom they brought to us from the Holy Spirit, as Prophet Seers and revelators.


Regards,

George Clay
I've made a lengthy response, but it disappeared. And I have received a warning from the Creator of the forum, so you and Mark have fun with you're passive aggressive jabs and outright insults since you probably both resort to whining to the aforementioned Creator.

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Mark »

Rachael wrote:
gclayjr wrote:Rachael,
You insult the principle of freethinking, but you present yourself as an intellectual sort. Most everything I quoted from has come from LDS.org/essays, JoD, manuals, Ensign, Conference talks, or Church History. The rest is from wiki or my personal, anecdotal accounts from personal experiences.. Sometimes books that are not approved by the Church, usuallly, if the footnotes come from LDS approved sources.

The leaders are the ones who are aggressive. Thus an STCMC exists. When I was ex'd for having a child out of wedlock almost 30 yes ago, I hadn't been to church in 4 years, at the least. I lived over 25 miles away from this branch. I wasn't bothering or influencing anybody there. But they found me, served me my summons, then codemned me spiritually to the second death, and gave me a parting gift of SWK's "Miracle if You Can Be Forgiven.". I came back finally, to a spiritually dead , ridgidly ran, church. At least back in the day, there were some familiar spirits at least. But I claim no righteousness. If you want to, cuz you're a good tbm, go ahead. No one is righteous and good, except GOD.
You misunderstand what I mean, and other's mean about being a tbm. We don't think we are any better than others. We all have sinned, and while I don't see any need to confess mine here, I make no claim that they are any less than yours or anybody else's.

The difference is that those of us who position ourselves as TBMs recognize that the problem is with us and not the Church and leaders. We don't spend our days weeding through every document to discover what we perceive to flaws in either doctrine or our general authorities. We do recognize that they are Men, with flaws, and that not every word they wrote is from God's mouth to paper.

My point is that you guys get so fanatical and vicious that you don't recognize the inherent flaws in your own reasoning. You have the bit in your mouth so tight, that if those of us who are not caught up in the endless fault finding point out errors in your logic, conclusions or sources, you take it personal.

I do find it interesting that you all seem to think that your personal attacks towards, our church, our leaders, and us, is intellectual discourse, but as soon as we refute your claims, it becomes personal attacks. I don't get my panties in a twist when someone attacks me. I just point out those attacks, in conjunction with the whining to show the hypocrisy in your whining.

By the way, I grew up in the Finger Lakes Region in New York, in the 50's and 60's in a branch that was so small , that my current house is bigger than our meeting house was. My brother is currently a branch president in a branch in West Virginia. I do know that that life in a branch can be quite different than in a ward. There are many fewer people, who have less contact with that Brotherhood, and knowledge that is available in larger congregations. It does lead to weaker leadership, and more strange behaviors and heresies than you would find elsewhere. I am sorry for any harm you have received as a result of this.

However, that should inspire you to grasp the iron rod tighter, and look for more wisdom to help you coming from our general authorities, rather than chasing after jots and tittles of "evidence' to justify demeaning them, and hence not being able to see the wisdom they brought to us from the Holy Spirit, as Prophet Seers and revelators.


Regards,

George Clay
I've made a lengthy response, but it disappeared. And I have received a warning from the Creator of the forum, so you and Mark have fun with you're passive aggressive jabs and outright insults since you probably both resort to whining to the aforementioned Creator.
I apologize for any jabs or insults that I have been a part of Sister. I know we have different paradigms of the church and I am truly sorry if I came across as non caring or abrupt at times. I am sure that your road has been difficult at times and hope that the Lords tender mercies will accompany your future travels down this difficult and confusing trail we call mortality. I wish you the very best in your journey.

Post Reply