Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

[AI2.0]

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.

These are all the excuses put forward to explain why Mountain Meadows happened. I'm not sure this really explains why, but merely rationalizes the mass murder of a group of innocent people. While there was an element of revenge involved, there was also trauma, fear--but underlying greed.

First, the Mormon Reformation did call for greater obedience, but any of those men could have walked away. They knew what they were doing was wrong and actually, some did walk away and would not participate, so I think the emphasis on obedience was not the driving force.

Blood atonement is clearly misunderstood by those who try to use it as an excuse--as Finrock pointed out, this doctrine was actually about the person who killed, needing to give up their own life to complete their REPENTANCE--they considered it the only way to make restitution, and so did other Christians. Killing others who were not repentant was not blood atonement. If the Mormons involved really believed that there were members of the emigrant party who were involved in Killing the Smiths, it would never have justified wiping out the whole group. Blood Atonement as believed by some Mormons was the same reasoning as is found in the Bible and practiced by countries which have capital punishment--and this notion that blood must actually be spilt to make it efficacious is speculative and added by some, not believed by others. To this day, some people believe that to be forgiven of Murder, a murderer must give up their own life--the church doesn't teach this, we follow the laws of the land and in some places, they've done away with the death penalty, so the church doesn't push it.

The Oath of Vengeance was symbolic and not acted on, just like the other oaths and it had more to do with condemning what was done to their Prophet and Patriarch and NEVER FORGETTING. It was NOT acted on, because if the militia members tried to excuse what they'd done by using this rationalization, they knew they were lying. They didn't know if any of them were involved in the murders of the Smiths, because there was nothing to tie them to it and also, Mormons are taught that 'vengeance' is the Lord's to pay--not theirs. This was another excuse some used to try to salve their consciences, but they knew it was a lie. Some that were never brought to justice did not escape their guilty consciences.

Parly Pratt's death--another excuse.

Rumors about some bragging, was also an excuse, and even if some bragged or mocked, it was still no justification for mass murder.

The fact is, the Massacre happened because of a series of events which snowballed and took on a life of it's own. And, my opinion is that it started out with greed. The Fancher group was wealthy--they had expensive wagons, supplies and livestock, etc. The Mormons down there were scratching out an existence and there's no question they were envious and desperate. Desperate people will do desperate things and if they are also afraid, they may not think clearly and they will definitely rationalize. Their fears may have been unreasonable, but it is explainable. I'm sure many of them suffered with post traumatic stress syndrome for what they went through in being driven out numerous times for being Mormon. Many of them had been in Jackson County, Missouri when the Saints were terrorized and driven from their homes, their wives and children assaulted and suffering. This did give them a good excuse to justify their participation in killing the group. And, I think that some were roped into it without knowing they were going to kill the whole group. The rank and file militia were not all aware and some were sickened, others did know and took part willingly.

But, you do have to ask, what happened to the property of the Emigrants? If you answer that question, you can start to connect the dots and understand a little better why it snowballed and why all but a handful of young children were murdered, then the dead buried quickly to 'hide' the atrocity they'd committed.

[AI2.0]

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.

Rachel, no offense, but you're pretty good at the passive aggressive jabs and insults directed at the church--and then you don't play fair by bringing up your own ill treatment at the hands of a Bishop when you were young, in order to gain sympathy, when it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is not the fault of Mark or George. And, I'm sorry if I've offended you by speaking frankly, but I feel you need to have this pointed out as you are most likely unconsciously, and emotionally, engaging in it.

None of us were there, we don't know what happened to you, but I think it's very likely you were not treated well; that kind of thing happened 30 years ago when church leaders were much more aggressive at excommunicating even repentant members. They really emphasized the punitive side of repentance and shaming and it was a very hard process to go through--just listen to talks from that time period and you'll see the change over the years. I think it's an example of something we're doing better at now. Now they use disfellowship and probation a lot more often and excommunicate as a last resort.

It was a long time ago, and maybe it's time to let it go, so you can start the healing process. I've been reading your posts for some time now and the fact that you spend time on this forum, I think you want to forgive and repent, and make peace with the church. I think many on this forum would love to help you do this.

[inho]

The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others.

Blood atonement is clearly misunderstood by those who try to use it as an excuse--as Finrock pointed out, this doctrine was actually about the person who killed, needing to give up their own life to complete their REPENTANCE--they considered it the only way to make restitution, and so did other Christians. Killing others who were not repentant was not blood atonement.

I'm curious to here where do you think the blood atonement was taught this way. It is pretty easy to think that blood atonement is about killing others, when we have Brigham Young saying things like this:

I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.] Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. [Voices, generally, “go it, go it.”] If you say it is right, raise your hands. [All hands up.] Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.
JoD 1:83

and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?”
All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?
JoD 4:219

Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.
JoD 3:247

I acknowledge that usually when BY talked about the blood atonement, he said something similar to the second quote above. That is, that the transgressor would request it. But since he also said things like the other two quotes, it is easy to think that the blood atonement is not just about giving up one's life. I wish not to defend that position, I just want to point out that there is a reason why it was misunderstood that way.

[AI2.0]

The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others.

Blood atonement is clearly misunderstood by those who try to use it as an excuse--as Finrock pointed out, this doctrine was actually about the person who killed, needing to give up their own life to complete their REPENTANCE--they considered it the only way to make restitution, and so did other Christians. Killing others who were not repentant was not blood atonement.

I'm curious to here where do you think the blood atonement was taught this way. It is pretty easy to think that blood atonement is about killing others, when we have Brigham Young saying things like this:

I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.] Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. [Voices, generally, “go it, go it.”] If you say it is right, raise your hands. [All hands up.] Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.
JoD 1:83

and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?”
All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?
JoD 4:219

Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.
JoD 3:247

I acknowledge that usually when BY talked about the blood atonement, he said something similar to the second quote above. That is, that the transgressor would request it. But since he also said things like the other two quotes, it is easy to think that the blood atonement is not just about giving up one's life. I wish not to defend that position, I just want to point out that there is a reason why it was misunderstood that way.

I know for certain that the last quote is taken out of it's context and if put back in, it loses the incendiary quality it has as quoted. I don't know about the first quote, but I assume as much also. You need to remember that 'blood atonement' as interpreted as it being okay and even condoned to kill a sinner is not what was taught by the church, but what the church was accused of teaching(and if you look at some other religions, some condone this--some Muslims, take this to the extreme and feel they have an obligation to kill sinners, even their own family members--it's called honor killing). The church has never taught honor killing, however the church believed in capital punishment, no question, but believed that it would be through the justice system, not vigilante or even a wronged party. The church doesn't teach that. Apostates have taught it--Ervil LeBaron is a good example. The LeBaron group started out like many fundamentalists--they believed the church went off the rails when they stopped polygamy and so they took those who followed them and moved to Mexico. But, when LeBaron started misinterpreting Blood Atonement to what you are claiming it means, many of his former Mormon followers broke with him--they KNEW it was a false teaching and wanted nothing to do with it. That's one of the reasons Ervil called on his followers to kill his Brother Joel and others who spoke out against him (and his 'Lambs of God' did carry out his pronouncements).

When studying these things, it is wise to look carefully at your sources because there is too much misinformation and even outright lies that have been leveled against the church over the years.


As for the actual teaching of Blood Atonement--It comes from the Old Testament originally. Finrock mentioned the correct understanding of it and didn't someone already give a reference to Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation? I'm pretty sure he covers Blood Atonement. Since it's not a teaching Members today ever even hear about, I'd think you'd need to go back several decades to find out what it actually was and I think my recollection is accurate. If I had time, I'd try to find it, but I don't, sorry.

[AI2.0]

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

My father told about how the missionaries in the Shetland Islands in the late 40's excommunicated a member for being 'too zealous' in his living the gospel. They were young kids, given a lot of responsibility, with little experience and no leadership--the Mission President was far away in England. My husband's ancestor was excommunicated for attending a church dance he was not invited to in Parowan in the late 1800's. Church leaders are not infallible and some don't ever grow into their callings of spiritual responsibility. I think there are many people who have cause to feel they were wronged. It's these opportunities which can help us learn to forgive and develop christlike charity.

[rewcox]

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

My father told about how the missionaries in the Shetland Islands in the late 40's excommunicated a member for being 'too zealous' in his living the gospel. They were young kids, given a lot of responsibility, with little experience and no leadership--the Mission President was far away in England. My husband's ancestor was excommunicated for attending a church dance he was not invited to in Parowan in the late 1800's. Church leaders are not infallible and some don't ever grow into their callings of spiritual responsibility. I think there are many people who have cause to feel they were wronged. It's these opportunities which can help us learn to forgive and develop christlike charity.

George, for clarification, while being a TBM, I don't wear panties so mine can't be twisted.

[gclayjr]

rewcox,

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meanin ... in-a-twist

get (one's) panties in a twist
verb

panic, upset

Don't get your panties in a twist, George!

Last edited on Jan 04 2005. Submitted by Rich S. from St Louis, MO, USA on Jan 04 2005.

I think a more attention getting phrase than simply "upset". To prove it, just see how many people react to this slang term here on this board.

Regards,

George Clay

PS. it is interesting that they use my name in their sample sentence.

[inho]

I know for certain that the last quote is taken out of it's context and if put back in, it loses the incendiary quality it has as quoted.

Can you elaborate? I provided the link to the sermon in Journal of Discourses and reading the quote in its context there doesn't help me.

But, when LeBaron started misinterpreting Blood Atonement to what you are claiming it means,

I don't think you read my post carefully, I'm not claiming that interpretation.

and didn't someone already give a reference to Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation?

That was me.

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue:

I know for certain that the last quote is taken out of it's context and if put back in, it loses the incendiary quality it has as quoted.

Can you elaborate? I provided the link to the sermon in Journal of Discourses and reading the quote in its context there doesn't help me.Maybe you should read it again, after reading the definition of Blood Atonement (as believed by early church members) I've provided below and then hopefully you can see what I'm talking about regarding context. Hope this helps. If it doesn't, then I don't know what else to suggest.

Here's an explanation which also might help you see how taking that one quote out of the context makes it more incendiary and misleading about Brigham Young, which he didn't deserve;
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/ ... -a-javelin

But, when LeBaron started misinterpreting Blood Atonement to what you are claiming it means,

I don't think you read my post carefully, I'm not claiming that interpretation.

I'm not sure what you're claiming then, but what LeBaron actually DID, is what critics have accused Brigham Young of doing. As I see it, Pres. Young speculated on how things would be done in a Theocratic society. And, it wasn't about killing the person, but how they should want to kill themselves. There is a difference.

and didn't someone already give a reference to Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation?

That was me.

If it was you, then why are we having this conversation? You know there should be no controversy over this doctrine then.

And here is the definition of Blood Atonement as LDS believed it.

Blood Atonement

Author: Snow, Lowell M.

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.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blood_Atonement

Capital Punishment, as practiced among many Nations, over millenia, is tied to this notion of Blood Atonement.

[Rachael]

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.

Rachel, no offense, but you're pretty good at the passive aggressive jabs and insults directed at the church--and then you don't play fair by bringing up your own ill treatment at the hands of a Bishop when you were young, in order to gain sympathy, when it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is not the fault of Mark or George. And, I'm sorry if I've offended you by speaking frankly, but I feel you need to have this pointed out as you are most likely unconsciously, and emotionally, engaging in it.

None of us were there, we don't know what happened to you, but I think it's very likely you were not treated well; that kind of thing happened 30 years ago when church leaders were much more aggressive at excommunicating even repentant members. They really emphasized the punitive side of repentance and shaming and it was a very hard process to go through--just listen to talks from that time period and you'll see the change over the years. I think it's an example of something we're doing better at now. Now they use disfellowship and probation a lot more often and excommunicate as a last resort.

It was a long time ago, and maybe it's time to let it go, so you can start the healing process. I've been reading your posts for some time now and the fact that you spend time on this forum, I think you want to forgive and repent, and make peace with the church. I think many on this forum would love to help you do this.

I said a goodbye to this forum on my captain of 1000 thread I started in outerdarkness, but this place is addictive. I'm weak, and I relasped. And during my goodbye post, this thread was inaccessible. That got my non existent panties in a twist. I had pointed out we should not focus on checking on others' underwear choices. That post got deleted. But at least the thread came back

But I stand by that. If you look for garment lines on others, stop doing it. Its none of your business.

Its church, church, church, church.

I know this church is true is said ad nauseum in testimonies.

Covenant to the church in the temple.

The church ain't Jesus. And Jesus saves. I don't need to repent to the Church. Jesus Christ took the nails for me, not the Church.

I don't want, or need, BA' s throat slitting, tongue torn out, bowels,spilling to the ground, to add to what Christ did. That is what BA is. Or BS, rather.

[rewcox]

Rachael,



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.

Rachel, no offense, but you're pretty good at the passive aggressive jabs and insults directed at the church--and then you don't play fair by bringing up your own ill treatment at the hands of a Bishop when you were young, in order to gain sympathy, when it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is not the fault of Mark or George. And, I'm sorry if I've offended you by speaking frankly, but I feel you need to have this pointed out as you are most likely unconsciously, and emotionally, engaging in it.

None of us were there, we don't know what happened to you, but I think it's very likely you were not treated well; that kind of thing happened 30 years ago when church leaders were much more aggressive at excommunicating even repentant members. They really emphasized the punitive side of repentance and shaming and it was a very hard process to go through--just listen to talks from that time period and you'll see the change over the years. I think it's an example of something we're doing better at now. Now they use disfellowship and probation a lot more often and excommunicate as a last resort.

It was a long time ago, and maybe it's time to let it go, so you can start the healing process. I've been reading your posts for some time now and the fact that you spend time on this forum, I think you want to forgive and repent, and make peace with the church. I think many on this forum would love to help you do this.

I said a goodbye to this forum on my captain of 1000 thread I started in outerdarkness, but this place is addictive. I'm weak, and I relasped. And during my goodbye post, this thread was inaccessible. That got my non existent panties in a twist. I had pointed out we should not focus on checking on others' underwear choices. That post got deleted. But at least the thread came back

But I stand by that. If you look for garment lines on others, stop doing it. Its none of your business.

Its church, church, church, church.

I know this church is true is said ad nauseum in testimonies.

Covenant to the church in the temple.

The church ain't Jesus. And Jesus saves. I don't need to repent to the Church. Jesus Christ took the nails for me, not the Church.

I don't want, or need, BA' s throat slitting, tongue torn out, bowels,spilling to the ground, to add to what Christ did. That is what BA is. Or BS, rather.

The Amonhies started a thread and this thread to stir up some anti Mormon stuff. BA is not doctrine.

This is our day.

We have the Book of Mormon, we have the Church organization, we have the priesthood and ordinances, and we have temples.

Some , like you, have had some really tough experiences. There is One who can heal. See Alma 36, Mosiah 26, D&C 50.

What matters is where we make it in our lives.

[jwharton]

The doctrine of "blood atonement" is merely misunderstood by all those who are not acquainted with deciphering "seer speak".
Our prophets have the duty to be seers so they can clarify things rather than be lazy and just condemn what previous seers have said.
Unfortunately, they now do us all a grave injustice by making our early leaders who were seers out to be emotional fools.
Current Church policy does in fact allow someone to carry out the provision of "blood atonement", they just don't realize it.

The doctrine of "blood atonement" comes directly from the language of symbol and ceremony.
It most certainly wasn't just "rhetorical or emotional oratory" from a frenzied mind, as is implied.
When the Spirit comes over those who are seers, they use the language of a seer to convey their ideas.
Therefore, all such things spoken by seers must be deciphered properly to be understood and applied correctly.
They at least could have let the world know that the true meaning of such language is veiled in symbol.

The context is along these lines:
If someone enters into the New and Everlasting Covenant and commits a grievous sin, such as "shedding the innocent blood" of someone else of the New and Everlasting Covenant, then they do benefit by "shedding their own blood" as a recompense for that grievous sin.

I quoted "shedding the innocent blood" phrase because it isn't yet fully deciphered and it doesn't only mean physical murder.

I'll attempt to explain how this works as well as decipher it into plain language from the language of symbol.
I'll also start out with a summary of the end conclusion that will be reached so that you know where this is going.

If you only had two choices, and participating willingly in the doctrine of "blood atonement" or not was that choice,
would you prefer to be sealed up as a Gentile in the world to come or sealed up as a Son of Perdition in the world to come?

If you would prefer to be a Gentile instead of a Son of Perdition, then you should voluntarily atone your own "blood".

The reason this would be of benefit to them is it will lower their level of accountability in the matter of their sin.

So, what is the "blood atonement" spoken of deciphered to in plain speak?
What does it mean to "shed innocent blood" and commit the unpardonable sin?
We get a good clue in also knowing the unpardonable sin is to "deny the Holy Ghost".

"Blood atonement" is effectively having one's own ordinances rescinded, thus denying themselves the gift of Holy Ghost.
"Shedding innocent blood" is causing someone innocent of deserving such to be denied the gift of the Holy Ghost.

So, if you do actually murder someone in the flesh, then the Holy Ghost is indeed denied access to that tabernacle.
But, you don't actually have to physically murder someone to cause the Holy Ghost to be denied access to a tabernacle.
People can falsely accuse someone and local leaders can follow through with excommunication unjustly as well.
This has the same consequence, so far as the Holy Ghost is concerned, to deny someone this gift when they are worthy.
Excommunicating someone in an unjust manner is also denying the Holy Ghost and is an unpardonable sin.
Many local leaders likely do not really understand the severity and potential blow back they could suffer if they err.
So far as the Holy Ghost is concerned, this is a sin against the Holy Ghost directly to deny one worthy of its Gift.

So, performing "blood atonement" is willingly going in to the leaders and having one's Church membership revoked.
And, yes, this does have the gift of the Holy Ghost removed and yes that person's "breath of life" is severed.
At that moment that person who at one time had spiritual life has now voluntarily ended that spiritual life.

So, when that person dies physically and passes from this world and their eternal soul is judged for their deeds as pertaining to their measure of creation in the world to come, their act to voluntarily terminate their spiritual life will alter the level of accountability they are judged at. They voluntarily withdrew themselves from the level of accountability of a member of the New and Everlasting Covenant and went back to being judged at the level of accountability of a Gentile. Thus, instead of being sent to Perdition for committing the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost, they can yet be an heir of the Telestial Kingdom where being a garden variety murderer, so to speak, doesn't preclude someone from it. There are many such murderers in that level of glory.

[shadow]

We are not accountable for the sins of others. If someone is wrongfully excommed then it will be made right in the spirit world. There is no "blood atonement" required from the wronged party. Its foundationally a false doctrine to suppose otherwise.

[jwharton]

We are not accountable for the sins of others. If someone is wrongfully excommed then it will be made right in the spirit world. There is no "blood atonement" required from the wronged party. Its foundationally a false doctrine to suppose otherwise.

I promise I really try my best to be as clear as I can be.
But, from your comments, it seems I have failed in my efforts.
You seem to have totally missed my point.

Do you want me to try again or shall I just accept things where they are?

[Rachael]

Voluntarily submitting to BA is like suicide. Murdering yourself. Having others to participate in bringing it about makes them murders too. Believing it is necessary, is blasphemous against Christ's Atonement. Adding your own blood to Christ's?

This is our day.

We have the Book of Mormon, we have the Church organization, we have the priesthood and ordinances, and we have temples.

If Christ is not counted first and foremost in your list, we have nothing. Nada. Just some buildings and doctrines of men.

[rewcox]

Voluntarily submitting to BA is like suicide. Murdering yourself. Having others to participate in bringing it about makes them murders too. Believing it is necessary, is blasphemous against Christ's Atonement. Adding your own blood to Christ's?

This is our day.

We have the Book of Mormon, we have the Church organization, we have the priesthood and ordinances, and we have temples.

If Christ is not counted first and foremost in your list, we have nothing. Nada. Just some buildings and doctrines of men.

You are correct.
- The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Christ.
- Nephi said: 26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.
- Christ said to Alma the Elder: 20 Thou art my servant; and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life; and thou shalt serve me and go forth in my name, and shalt gather together my sheep.
- When we come to Christ, we want to go forth and help gather His sheep. This is our day.

- The Melchizedek Priesthood is Christ's Priesthood.

- Godliness is in the ordinances. See D&C 84

- On our temples is : The House of the Lord. Who shall stand in his holy place?:Ps. 24:3–5;

It is all about coming to Christ and God. See the last verses in D&C 50.

[jwharton]

Voluntarily submitting to BA is like suicide. Murdering yourself. Having others to participate in bringing it about makes them murders too. Believing it is necessary, is blasphemous against Christ's Atonement. Adding your own blood to Christ's?

This is our day.

We have the Book of Mormon, we have the Church organization, we have the priesthood and ordinances, and we have temples.

If Christ is not counted first and foremost in your list, we have nothing. Nada. Just some buildings and doctrines of men.

Your comment seems to join into the context of orthodox Christianity that is looking forward to when the Kingdom comes.
The purpose for what Christ did was to make mankind worthy to receive what we have been given, which is that very Kingdom.
Do you see where you have perhaps neglected to consider the significance and importance the LDS offering is to people?
And, then, once people come in and receive their blessings in the Kingdom, if they then commit grievous sin, then Perdition awaits.

[Rachael]

Voluntarily submitting to BA is like suicide. Murdering yourself. Having others to participate in bringing it about makes them murders too. Believing it is necessary, is blasphemous against Christ's Atonement. Adding your own blood to Christ's?

This is our day.

We have the Book of Mormon, we have the Church organization, we have the priesthood and ordinances, and we have temples.

If Christ is not counted first and foremost in your list, we have nothing. Nada. Just some buildings and doctrines of men.

Your comment seems to join into the context of orthodox Christianity that is looking forward to when the Kingdom comes.
The purpose for what Christ did was to make mankind worthy to receive what we have been given, which is that very Kingdom.
Do you see where you have perhaps neglected to consider the significance and importance the LDS offering is to people?
And, then, once people come in and receive their blessings in the Kingdom, if they then commit grievous sin, then Perdition awaits.

I do look forward to the Kingdom of Christ's coming. You don't? Or you think it here already?

I agree Christ's Atonement gave us grace to belong to His Kingdom, but it is based on His worthiness, not ours. Adam and Eve just ate some fruit and became unworthy of the Kingdom. All sins are grievous if you can eat fruit and cause the fall of the whole world. And perdition was everyone's fate of it wasn't for the Atonement.

Have you and some of the LDS people perhaps neglected to consider the significance and importance that Jesus Christ is offering people?

[jwharton]

I do look forward to the Kingdom of Christ's coming. You don't? Or you think it here already?

Yes, I don't because it is now here.
But, it is also in abeyance for the time being.
So, the way I put it is I look forward to Zion's redemption.
This is when the Father's Kingdom will finally obtain the victory in the new War in Heaven we are having right now.

I agree Christ's Atonement gave us grace to belong to His Kingdom, but it is based on His worthiness, not ours.

His worthiness was required to make the way for us open.
But, our worthiness is yet required in order for us to enter into the opening He provided.

Adam and Eve just ate some fruit and became unworthy of the Kingdom. All sins are grievous if you can eat fruit and cause the fall of the whole world. And perdition was everyone's fate if it wasn't for the Atonement.

Perdition is only the fate of those who have fully received of the goodness of God and tasted the heavenly gift and then afterwards altogether turned against it and betrayed it and assented to His death in so doing.

Have you and some of the LDS people perhaps neglected to consider the significance and importance that Jesus Christ is offering people?

Obviously you weren't listening to me.

Also, FYI, an Apostle of the Lord has this to say:

Hebrews 6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

So, even Christians should know better than to spout the doctrine you are spouting.

[Rachael]

Christians is a dirty word to you? Hebrews 1:1 says the law and the prophets were fulfilled in Christ. Then it goes on to say that Christ is the final holder of the Melchizedek priesthood. I'm not debating Hebrews 6 you quoted. Read the whole book.

[jwharton]

Christians is a dirty word to you? Hebrews 1:1 says the law and the prophets were fulfilled in Christ. Then it goes on to say that Christ is the final holder of the Melchizedek priesthood. I'm not debating Hebrews 6 you quoted. Read the whole book.

Orthodox Christianity has its merits but they are completely oblivious of the workings of the Father in the last days.