Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
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: 8014
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: 8014
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.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by AI2.0 »

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.
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.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by AI2.0 »

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.
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.

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 »

Finrock wrote: The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others.
AI2.0 wrote: 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.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by AI2.0 »

inho wrote:
Finrock wrote: The blood atonement doctrine was about a person killing themselves, it was not about advocating that members kill others.
AI2.0 wrote: 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.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by AI2.0 »

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

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.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by rewcox »

AI2.0 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

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. :)

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

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by 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.

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 »

AI2.0 wrote: 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.
AI2.0 wrote: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.
AI2.0 wrote: and didn't someone already give a reference to Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation?
That was me.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by AI2.0 »

My responses in blue:
inho wrote:
AI2.0 wrote: 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

AI2.0 wrote: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.

AI2.0 wrote: 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.


User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

Post by Rachael »

AI2.0 wrote:
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.
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.

Post Reply