Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

[Amonhi]

Ok, we all know that the previous thread was blocked for unknown reasons. Cool.

But I am concerned because while I didn't read the whole thing, I know that some doctrine was expressed which was dangerously wrong and if our good brothers and sisters who were discussing that topic continued to believe the doctrine and committed a sin that they felt was a grievous sin, after having been endowed, they might attempt to offer their own live as a sacrifice to atone for their sins because of the information discussed only in part on that thread.

I wasn't able to correct a gross error that was being discussed as Church Doctrine and while I am ok with the moderators blocking or deleting this thread, I request that they allow people a few days to read it before they do so in order to correct the severe error.

I do not want people to think that the Doctrines that were discussed are actually supported by the LDS Church as official doctrine. If you commit a gross sin after being endowed, Your own blood is NOT required to atone for it. Even as someone with their C&E or Second Comforter, this is not required.

Jumping to the point, George quoted Fairmormon.org which was trying to support Brigham Young and so falsely claimed to be expressing the LDS Official Doctrine.
Fairmormon.org said,

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.[1]

This is NOT Church Doctrine. The teachings of Brigham Young regarding this concept were denounced by the church publicly in 2010: The church has denounced Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon which this was taken from.

Mormon church statement on blood atonement
Published: June 18, 2010 12:00 p.m.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday:

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.
- http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7000 ... ement.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The thread was cut short before I was able to make a number of points I had hoped to make, this being one of them.

I just wanted to repeat that while that discussion thread had a number of ideas and comments that seemed to make sense, or may have even been partial truths, they were not accurate and cannot be correctly understood from the view points that were presented in that thread.

As far as doctrine goes, Heb. 6:1-6 and D&C 132:26-27 are scriptures that talk about the idea that at some point in our progression a person is no longer able to assent to the death of Christ. If this applies to you, please do not think that it requires the shedding of your own blood to atone for your mistakes, sins, or transgressions.

Out of respect to LDSFF, I will forbear further discussion on this topic including making any of the remaining points that I had hoped to express until I am given to understand the reason for blocking the original thread.

Peace,
Amonhi

[AI2.0]

I only briefly looked at your last thread and what I noticed was that you misrepresented Brigham Young's words by clipping them and presenting them out of context. Why would you do that?

I suspect that in this situation, once again you are misrepresenting the words of Brigham Young. Many people have as they've twisted the meaning of things he said to accuse him of all kinds of nefarious teachings.

Unfortunately Brigham Young is not here to defend himself or try to explain what he meant. And I know that he was the Lord's prophet who led the church for many decades. I would expect he was a righteous man to have had the Lord's confidence in leading his church and his people.

But, I agree with you--the interpretation of Pres. Young's words which you are promoting is NOT LDS doctrine.

Amonhi, you claim to be one of the 144,000 and have your calling and election sure. But, I've come to the conclusion that you and the LDS church are at odds, so either you are 'true' (in other words, you are what you claim to be) or the church is 'true'(it is what it claims to be), but the fact is, you both can't be 'true' (what you claim to be). One of you is false.

[Juliet]

Thank you and I admire your willingness to submit to the reasoning if the moderators, even without knowing why. I enjoyed the thread.

[Amonhi]

I only briefly looked at your last thread and what I noticed was that you misrepresented Brigham Young's words by clipping them and presenting them out of context. Why would you do that?

I suspect that in this situation, once again you are misrepresenting the words of Brigham Young. Many people have as they've twisted the meaning of things he said to accuse him of all kinds of nefarious teachings.

Unfortunately Brigham Young is not here to defend himself or try to explain what he meant. And I know that he was the Lord's prophet who led the church for many decades. I would expect he was a righteous man to have had the Lord's confidence in leading his church and his people.

But, I agree with you--the interpretation of Pres. Young's words which you are promoting is NOT LDS doctrine.

I respectfully request that you provide an example of me "misrepresenting the words of Brigham Young" which you have accused me of. In this thread or any other. Idle accusations without evidence are simply an attempt to create the appearance of evil. Just because you said it, doesn't mean it happened.

I specifically did not provide my interpretation or opinion of his words in that thread and openly said that I wasn't providing them until I had heard and clearly understood the views of George, Eddie and Rewcox. That never happened.

George and Rewcox both quoted the fairmormon.org quote as if it were correct. There was minor discussion on the topic, some unknown amount of which I did not see. I provided the OP in this post as expressed to specifically show that the Fairmormon.org answer is NOT considered Church doctrine and that the church (or at least the PR Dept) does not officially accept the idea that Christ's blood is unable to atone for sin at any degree of knowledge.

Peace,
Amonhi

[rewcox]

Amonhi, you missed this in George and my posts:

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.

[Amonhi]

Amonhi, you missed this in George and my posts:

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.

Thank you,

My mistake.

Peace,
Amonhi

[butterfly]

Amonhi, you missed this in George and my posts:

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.

Thank you,

My mistake.

Peace,
Amonhi

What about the covenants we make in the temple? They were tweaked relatively recently- didn't everyone use to swear that if they broke the covenant then their throat would be slit and their bodies disemboweled?

That sounds like blood atonement being taught in the temple and practiced in ritual. It wasn't just something the officiator said - each individual made these signs over their own sacred bodies, covenanting before God, angels, and witnesses that they would spill their own blood in consequence of breaking their covenants.

In this regard, i disagree with the church's claim that it never practiced blood atonement.

[TrueIntent]

Amonhi, you missed this in George and my posts:

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.

Thank you,

My mistake.

Peace,
Amonhi

What about the covenants we make in the temple? They were tweaked relatively recently- didn't everyone use to swear that if they broke the covenant then their throat would be slit and their bodies disemboweled?

That sounds like blood atonement being taught in the temple and practiced in ritual. It wasn't just something the officiator said - each individual made these signs over their own sacred bodies, covenanting before God, angels, and witnesses that they would spill their own blood in consequence of breaking their covenants.

In this regard, i disagree with the church's claim that it never practiced blood atonement.

Swearing by the throat...does that have anything to do with the oath Cain made???

29 And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.

[butterfly]

Amonhi, you missed this in George and my posts:

Thank you,

My mistake.

Peace,
Amonhi

What about the covenants we make in the temple? They were tweaked relatively recently- didn't everyone use to swear that if they broke the covenant then their throat would be slit and their bodies disemboweled?

That sounds like blood atonement being taught in the temple and practiced in ritual. It wasn't just something the officiator said - each individual made these signs over their own sacred bodies, covenanting before God, angels, and witnesses that they would spill their own blood in consequence of breaking their covenants.

In this regard, i disagree with the church's claim that it never practiced blood atonement.

Swearing by the throat...does that have anything to do with the oath Cain made???

29 And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.

I thought the exact same thing when you quoted this scripture on the other thread about the sons of perdition.
I went through the temple after the throat slitting and disemboweling were removed, so I never actually participated in that part.
But honestly, those of you who went through the temple when this was practiced - how did you accept that this was truly of God? Did you really think that God would want you to kill yourself if you had broken your covenants?

[inho]

Joseph Fielding Smith preached a version of Blood Atonement. According to him, Lord some times takes people's life because of their sins and he also supports capital punishment. He seems to limit the need for blood atonement to murderers. Here are some quotes from Doctrines of Salvation vol. 1:

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon?

...

TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General-that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ-and, Individual-that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

But man may commit certain grievous sins-according to his light and knowledge-that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone-so far as in his power lies-for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

...

ANCIENT MEN SLAIN TO ATONE FOR SINS. Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? Of Zemnarihah and his followers? What about Er and Onan, whom the Lord slew? Of Nadab and Abihu? And the death of Achan?

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you misquote. He tells us so, in the same discourse in the portion which you did not quote. It is:

"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would save them."


ATONEMENT AND SINS UNTO DEATH. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning, that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man."

This was the law among the Nephites: "Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die."

John says: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that ye shall pray for it."

UNIVERSAL PRACTICE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Every nation since the world began has practiced blood atonement, at least in part, as that doctrine is based upon the scriptures. And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ.

...

LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. In pursuance of and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death.

This is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the Mormon legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "Blood Atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.

[davedan]

What BY is teaching, I believe, is not Blood Atonement. Blood Atonement is about shedding blood of an another animal or human to pay for your own sin, ie Crusades, Jihad, etc.

What BY was teaching, in my opionion, was the doctrine of Sherem and the malafactor and what one must do to have a hope of forgiveness in Christ after committing a seemingly unpardonable sin.

This could be a very important doctrine that Satan hates because there's many people who, no doubt, feel stuck in deep dark conspiracies and they stay in them believing falsely that they've committed so much Sin, that they are beyond the reach of the atonement of Christ and they've committed the unpardonable sin and then there's no hope for forgiveness for redemption .

But, remember the Lamanites who preached the gospel of Christ to the more wicked part of the Gadiantons and by doing so, destroyed the Gadiantons and secret combinations from among them . and I think it was teaching how people could be forgiven of a seemingly unpardonable sin that made this possible.

what Sherem and the malefactor did was go through the steps of repentance.

1. accept and defend Christ
2. accept that they sinned
3. publicly confessed sin
4. freely accepted their punishment without appeal or plea deal. (even capital punishment)

I dont think having blood literally shed on the ground is a necessary ingredient. Again, If we believe in Christ, only His blood forgives sin. But the steps to repentance do require restitution and paying our social/societal penalties. (Why Sherem knew he was going to have to die).

What we get out of this is trustworthy confessions about what is really going on. Multiple witnesses sealing their testimony of their many sins and the sins of the great conspiracy with their own blood (so-to-speak).

The comspiracy loves to send us false insiders/defectors who claim to be "born again", but they never comfess or are punished for their sins. If they were true insiders they woukd have many terrible terrible sins to confess wgich is how the conspiracy prevents itself from being infiltrated.

[oneClimbs]

I thought the exact same thing when you quoted this scripture on the other thread about the sons of perdition.
I went through the temple after the throat slitting and disemboweling were removed, so I never actually participated in that part.
But honestly, those of you who went through the temple when this was practiced - how did you accept that this was truly of God? Did you really think that God would want you to kill yourself if you had broken your covenants?

One thing to consider is the similarities to how the sacrificial lamb was slain and prepared for sacrifice. While Christ did atone for us, there are some instances where ordinances imitate some past behaviors. As Paul said, we are buried with him in baptism, that act commemorates his death and resurrection. Likewise, we have an alter that we call a "sacrament table" with emblems representing a body and blood under a white cloth in a manner that could resemble a corpse under a sheet. The sheet is lifted and the body rises almost as if simulating a resurrection.

Based on my study of how lambs were sacrificed back in the day and how the temple robes hearken back to the ones worn by the temple priests and the fact that you are actually in a temple leads me to wonder if these references need to be considered in light of these kinds of things. The temple is certainly connecting past and present in many respects, after all, it starts at the beginning of the world. These penalties were never meant to be taken literally.

We take a similar penalty in the sacrament whether you realize it or not. The whole purpose of dividing the lamb was to indicate that if you didn't keep your covenants that you would be divided from God, even as the lamb had been divided asunder and the parts representing sin, etc. burned. Jesus initiated the process of actually breaking or dividing the bread, a custom we still carry on today. The bread represents the body of the Lamb of God, so in a sense, the elements of the animal sacrifice are still there we just don't use an actual animal, there isn't any blood save what is represented by clear water, and the meaning is clearly focused on the atoning act of Christ and our covenants. When you eat broken bread symbolizing the divided body of the Lamb of God and take it in by the mouth, it passes your throat and into your bowels, quite literally. If you think about it, the similarities are striking, but when considering what the symbols represent, the education is enlightening.

As far as Cain goes with the whole swearing by the throat thing, the secret combinations and virtually everything Satan does is an imitation or an echo of what God does. I realize that at first blush things can look one way, but it is important to consider things, none alone, but in the context of all God's revealed teachings on the subject. All truth is part of one great whole, when we carve out one little piece outside of that context, it can seem out of place and why not, we've moved it out of place into isolation.

Anyway, just some thoughts, take em or leave em.

[Amonhi]

Amonhi, you missed this in George and my posts:

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.

Thank you,

My mistake.

Peace,
Amonhi

What about the covenants we make in the temple? They were tweaked relatively recently- didn't everyone use to swear that if they broke the covenant then their throat would be slit and their bodies disemboweled?

That sounds like blood atonement being taught in the temple and practiced in ritual. It wasn't just something the officiator said - each individual made these signs over their own sacred bodies, covenanting before God, angels, and witnesses that they would spill their own blood in consequence of breaking their covenants.

In this regard, i disagree with the church's claim that it never practiced blood atonement.

I am not aware of anyone having been killed for breaking their oath.

Also, even if they were, it would not be part of atoning for your sins. The words that describe the atonement are misleading. The loss of blood doesn't actually do anything. It didn't with Christ and it wouldn't for those who have progressed beyond the reach of the atonement.

There is never an instance in which shedding your blood or the blood of a sheep or even of Christ for the sake of performing a blood atonement would save a person from their sins.

Peace,
Amonhi

[Amonhi]

Joseph Fielding Smith preached a version of Blood Atonement. According to him, Lord some times takes people's life because of their sins and he also supports capital punishment. He seems to limit the need for blood atonement to murderers. Here are some quotes from Doctrines of Salvation vol. 1:

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon?

...

TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General-that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ-and, Individual-that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

But man may commit certain grievous sins-according to his light and knowledge-that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone-so far as in his power lies-for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

...

ANCIENT MEN SLAIN TO ATONE FOR SINS. Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? Of Zemnarihah and his followers? What about Er and Onan, whom the Lord slew? Of Nadab and Abihu? And the death of Achan?

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you misquote. He tells us so, in the same discourse in the portion which you did not quote. It is:

"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would save them."


ATONEMENT AND SINS UNTO DEATH. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning, that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man."

This was the law among the Nephites: "Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die."

John says: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that ye shall pray for it."

UNIVERSAL PRACTICE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Every nation since the world began has practiced blood atonement, at least in part, as that doctrine is based upon the scriptures. And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ.

...

LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. In pursuance of and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death.

This is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the Mormon legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "Blood Atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.

I didn't read this entirely, but it appears that Joseph Fielding Smith is teaching based on a false understanding of the atonement. Eye for an eye. Punishment for sin.

If a person commits the unpardonable sin of murder after having received the light, there is no forgiveness for them, not through the blood of Christ and not through their own blood. No forgiveness at all.

In addition, a person who HAS come to the point of being beyond the reaches of the Atonement of Christ must suffer for their own sins, all of them, not just the major or grievous ones like murder or sexual. All of them. And not by killing themselves.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord. - D&C 132

The concept of blood atonement is not correct. Even as taught by Joseph Fielding Smith in these quotes or Brigham Young in the Blood Atonement sermon. They were trying to understand the concepts without having a proper knowledge of the Atonement of Christ and how it forgives sins.

In addition, a person does not reach beyond the atonement simply because they made covenants in the temple. Even when the blood oaths were made, it was a blood oath made regarding revealing the NAME, Sign AND Token all at the same time. A person can give the sign and token as long as they do not reveal the name at the same time. That is what we covenanted to do. An example of this is given in the Endowment when Adam is speaking with Peter and Adam says what is this and Peter says I can't tell you the name, but this is the sign...

Peace,
Amonhi

[rewcox]

Joseph Fielding Smith preached a version of Blood Atonement. According to him, Lord some times takes people's life because of their sins and he also supports capital punishment. He seems to limit the need for blood atonement to murderers. Here are some quotes from Doctrines of Salvation vol. 1:

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon?

...

TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General-that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ-and, Individual-that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

But man may commit certain grievous sins-according to his light and knowledge-that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone-so far as in his power lies-for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

...

ANCIENT MEN SLAIN TO ATONE FOR SINS. Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? Of Zemnarihah and his followers? What about Er and Onan, whom the Lord slew? Of Nadab and Abihu? And the death of Achan?

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you misquote. He tells us so, in the same discourse in the portion which you did not quote. It is:

"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would save them."


ATONEMENT AND SINS UNTO DEATH. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning, that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man."

This was the law among the Nephites: "Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die."

John says: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that ye shall pray for it."

UNIVERSAL PRACTICE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Every nation since the world began has practiced blood atonement, at least in part, as that doctrine is based upon the scriptures. And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ.

...

LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. In pursuance of and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death.

This is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the Mormon legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "Blood Atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.

I didn't read this entirely, but it appears that Joseph Fielding Smith is teaching based on a false understanding of the atonement. Eye for an eye. Punishment for sin.

If a person commits the unpardonable sin of murder after having received the light, there is no forgiveness for them, not through the blood of Christ and not through their own blood. No forgiveness at all.

In addition, a person who HAS come to the point of being beyond the reaches of the Atonement of Christ must suffer for their own sins, all of them, not just the major or grievous ones like murder or sexual. All of them. And not by killing themselves.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord. - D&C 132

The concept of blood atonement is not correct. Even as taught by Joseph Fielding Smith in these quotes or Brigham Young in the Blood Atonement sermon. They were trying to understand the concepts without having a proper knowledge of the Atonement of Christ and how it forgives sins.

In addition, a person does not reach beyond the atonement simply because they made covenants in the temple. Even when the blood oaths were made, it was a blood oath made regarding revealing the NAME, Sign AND Token all at the same time. A person can give the sign and token as long as they do not reveal the name at the same time. That is what we covenanted to do. An example of this is given in the Endowment when Adam is speaking with Peter and Adam says what is this and Peter says I can't tell you the name, but this is the sign...

Peace,
Amonhi

And here it is, knocking a prophet of the church. But we do know their names!

[Amonhi]

Joseph Fielding Smith preached a version of Blood Atonement. According to him, Lord some times takes people's life because of their sins and he also supports capital punishment. He seems to limit the need for blood atonement to murderers. Here are some quotes from Doctrines of Salvation vol. 1:

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon?

...

TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General-that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ-and, Individual-that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

But man may commit certain grievous sins-according to his light and knowledge-that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone-so far as in his power lies-for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

...

ANCIENT MEN SLAIN TO ATONE FOR SINS. Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? Of Zemnarihah and his followers? What about Er and Onan, whom the Lord slew? Of Nadab and Abihu? And the death of Achan?

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you misquote. He tells us so, in the same discourse in the portion which you did not quote. It is:

"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would save them."


ATONEMENT AND SINS UNTO DEATH. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning, that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man."

This was the law among the Nephites: "Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die."

John says: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that ye shall pray for it."

UNIVERSAL PRACTICE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Every nation since the world began has practiced blood atonement, at least in part, as that doctrine is based upon the scriptures. And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ.

...

LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. In pursuance of and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death.

This is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the Mormon legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "Blood Atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.

I didn't read this entirely, but it appears that Joseph Fielding Smith is teaching based on a false understanding of the atonement. Eye for an eye. Punishment for sin.

If a person commits the unpardonable sin of murder after having received the light, there is no forgiveness for them, not through the blood of Christ and not through their own blood. No forgiveness at all.

In addition, a person who HAS come to the point of being beyond the reaches of the Atonement of Christ must suffer for their own sins, all of them, not just the major or grievous ones like murder or sexual. All of them. And not by killing themselves.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord. - D&C 132

The concept of blood atonement is not correct. Even as taught by Joseph Fielding Smith in these quotes or Brigham Young in the Blood Atonement sermon. They were trying to understand the concepts without having a proper knowledge of the Atonement of Christ and how it forgives sins.

In addition, a person does not reach beyond the atonement simply because they made covenants in the temple. Even when the blood oaths were made, it was a blood oath made regarding revealing the NAME, Sign AND Token all at the same time. A person can give the sign and token as long as they do not reveal the name at the same time. That is what we covenanted to do. An example of this is given in the Endowment when Adam is speaking with Peter and Adam says what is this and Peter says I can't tell you the name, but this is the sign...

Peace,
Amonhi

And here it is, knocking a prophet of the church. But we do know their names!

There is no knocking a prophet here. We know they are wrong at times. It is not a blight against them to be wrong. It means they are human it is not an insult.

To say that it is knocking a prophet to say that they didn't have information that we have about 150 years later means that you think they are or should be infallible. As if they knew all things and never errored.

Just because I know something they don't doesn't mean they weren't prophets, weren't inspired, and weren't acting for God at times. Such logic is terribly flawed.

You know things I don't. That doesn't mean that you are against me or knocking me to correct me. I am not infallible and don't pretend to be. I am not prideful to the point that you are not allowed to know anything I don't know.

I know things that you don't. That doesn't mean that I am against you or knocking you if I correct you. I hope you are not so prideful that I am not allowed to know anything you don't know.

Why then would it be knocking a prophet to know something he didn't?

Peace,
Amonhi

[rewcox]

There is no knocking a prophet here. We know they are wrong at times. It is not a blight against them to be wrong. It means they are human it is not an insult.

To say that it is knocking a prophet to say that they didn't have information that we have about 150 years later means that you think they are or should be infallible. As if they knew all things and never errored.

Just because I know something they don't doesn't mean they weren't prophets, weren't inspired, and weren't acting for God at times. Such logic is terribly flawed.

You know things I don't. That doesn't mean that you are against me or knocking me to correct me. I am not infallible and don't pretend to be. I am not prideful to the point that you are not allowed to know anything I don't know.

I know things that you don't. That doesn't mean that I am against you or knocking you if I correct you. I hope you are not so prideful that I am not allowed to know anything you don't know.

Why then would it be knocking a prophet to know something he didn't?

Peace,
Amonhi

I'm thinking multiple personality disorder.

[Finrock]

There is no knocking a prophet here. We know they are wrong at times. It is not a blight against them to be wrong. It means they are human it is not an insult.

To say that it is knocking a prophet to say that they didn't have information that we have about 150 years later means that you think they are or should be infallible. As if they knew all things and never errored.

Just because I know something they don't doesn't mean they weren't prophets, weren't inspired, and weren't acting for God at times. Such logic is terribly flawed.

You know things I don't. That doesn't mean that you are against me or knocking me to correct me. I am not infallible and don't pretend to be. I am not prideful to the point that you are not allowed to know anything I don't know.

I know things that you don't. That doesn't mean that I am against you or knocking you if I correct you. I hope you are not so prideful that I am not allowed to know anything you don't know.

Why then would it be knocking a prophet to know something he didn't?

Peace,
Amonhi

I'm thinking multiple personality disorder.

Prophets are not above reproach. It is not an insult to say someone misunderstood something. Plus, only a prideful and insecure person would be insulted if someone suggested they were incorrect. I can see a person who is self absorbed being insulted as well, or someone who abuses power and position being insulted that they are incorrect. Like, I'm imagining Kim Jung Un, leader of North Korea. I bet noons has the nerve or the guts to tell him that he is wrong even when he blatantly is. I would guess that as supreme ruler he is always right, even if he isn't. So, out of fear people put up with that type of nonsense.

However, prophets of God are not like Kim Jung Un and they, because of their humility, recognize that they don't know it all. I have been told and shown to be wrong on a number of occasion and at this point in my life this doesn't bother. I look forward to being corrected.

But even without all of what I just said, saying that a person is mistaken is simply just not an insult or a knock.

Being humble and teachable is a Godly trait and it is good, so I know a true prophet of God will likely possess that trait. But, on the otherhand prophets come all shapes and sizes and they are going to sometimes act as humans act.

-Finrock

[Mark]

Joseph Fielding Smith preached a version of Blood Atonement. According to him, Lord some times takes people's life because of their sins and he also supports capital punishment. He seems to limit the need for blood atonement to murderers. Here are some quotes from Doctrines of Salvation vol. 1:

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon?

...

TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General-that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ-and, Individual-that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

But man may commit certain grievous sins-according to his light and knowledge-that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone-so far as in his power lies-for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

...

ANCIENT MEN SLAIN TO ATONE FOR SINS. Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? Of Zemnarihah and his followers? What about Er and Onan, whom the Lord slew? Of Nadab and Abihu? And the death of Achan?

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you misquote. He tells us so, in the same discourse in the portion which you did not quote. It is:

"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would save them."


ATONEMENT AND SINS UNTO DEATH. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning, that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man."

This was the law among the Nephites: "Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die."

John says: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that ye shall pray for it."

UNIVERSAL PRACTICE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Every nation since the world began has practiced blood atonement, at least in part, as that doctrine is based upon the scriptures. And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ.

...

LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. In pursuance of and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death.

This is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the Mormon legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "Blood Atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.

I didn't read this entirely, but it appears that Joseph Fielding Smith is teaching based on a false understanding of the atonement. Eye for an eye. Punishment for sin.

If a person commits the unpardonable sin of murder after having received the light, there is no forgiveness for them, not through the blood of Christ and not through their own blood. No forgiveness at all.

In addition, a person who HAS come to the point of being beyond the reaches of the Atonement of Christ must suffer for their own sins, all of them, not just the major or grievous ones like murder or sexual. All of them. And not by killing themselves.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord. - D&C 132

The concept of blood atonement is not correct. Even as taught by Joseph Fielding Smith in these quotes or Brigham Young in the Blood Atonement sermon. They were trying to understand the concepts without having a proper knowledge of the Atonement of Christ and how it forgives sins.

In addition, a person does not reach beyond the atonement simply because they made covenants in the temple. Even when the blood oaths were made, it was a blood oath made regarding revealing the NAME, Sign AND Token all at the same time. A person can give the sign and token as long as they do not reveal the name at the same time. That is what we covenanted to do. An example of this is given in the Endowment when Adam is speaking with Peter and Adam says what is this and Peter says I can't tell you the name, but this is the sign...

Peace,
Amonhi

Who made you the source of all truth when it comes to eternal doctrines of the gospel Amonhi? I know that Finrock seems to think that all you say here is infallible and 100% gospel truth but frankly you seem awfully presumptuous about your knowledge of spiritual things. Why do you think that you know exactly how the Lords atonement will effect every person in every circumstance? Do you really think you are that all knowing? You talk like it's a given that Joseph Fielding Smith is totally mistaken in his thoughts here about the atonement ( even though you admit to not even reading all those thoughts) and that you know all that the Lord will or won't require of every person in every circumstance. Ever considered that you might be the one who doesn't totally understand every ramification and consequence of every sin and circumstance? You are a very confident person I will give you that. Just consider that you might not KNOW as much as you THINK you know. Before correcting the Prophets on doctrine maybe you should realize that it might just be YOU who is mistaken in your VERY limited understanding of how the Lord works and what He will require of all His children in dealing with serious sin and transgression.

[Finrock]

Who made you the source of all truth when it comes to eternal doctrines of the gospel Amonhi? I know that Finrock seems to think that all you say here is infallible and 100% gospel truth but frankly you seem awfully presumptuous about your knowledge of spiritual things.

Mark, you don't know any of that about me. In posts to you I have let you know that I don't believe everything Amonhi says. I have also very clearly spoken about the principle that I try to live by. If I don't think the Church Apostles are infallible, why would I think Amonhi is infallible? Or, if I have asserted that mortals are fallible, why would I make a special exception when it comes to Amonhi? I wouldn't and I don't. I am not a respecter of persons. I don't just agree with someone because we are on the same team. If I agree it is because I sense the truth in the words being spoken. There are now many examples on these forums where I have disagreed with Amonhi and where I have agreed with those who are showing me great disdain.

I'm on the team "Truth". That is why I keep speaking about intellectual courage. Sometimes the truth requires us to be disloyal to our social group. To be disloyal to one's social group because of principle takes courage because the consequences of no longer just going along or agreeing with untruth can have severe consequences. In fact people have died because they discovered that truth doesn't agree with social conventions or notions and they were brave enough to speak out against the norm. They became ostracized and rejected by their peers and eventually their were martyred for their beliefs.

Sometimes, that is what it takes to stand on the side of truth.

-Finrock

P.S. As an example of disagreeing with Amonhi, I disagree with the premise of Amonhi's Brigham Young thread that was closed. I don't think Brigham Young was being serious. I think he was using theatrics and hyperbole to make a point. That context matters and I don't think in context Amonhi has a point.

[Mark]

Who made you the source of all truth when it comes to eternal doctrines of the gospel Amonhi? I know that Finrock seems to think that all you say here is infallible and 100% gospel truth but frankly you seem awfully presumptuous about your knowledge of spiritual things.

Mark, you don't know any of that about me. In posts to you I have let you know that I don't believe everything Amonhi says. I have also very clearly spoken about the principle that I try to live by. If I don't think the Church Apostles are infallible, why would I think Amonhi is infallible? Or, if I have asserted that mortals are fallible, why would I make a special exception when it comes to Amonhi? I wouldn't and I don't. I am not a respecter of persons. I don't just agree with someone because we are on the same team. If I agree it is because I sense the truth in the words being spoken. There are now many examples on these forums where I have disagreed with Amonhi and where I have agreed with those who are showing me great disdain.

I'm on the team "Truth". That is why I keep speaking about intellectual courage. Sometimes the truth requires us to be disloyal to our social group. To be disloyal to one's social group because of principle takes courage because the consequences of no longer just going along or agreeing with untruth can have severe consequences. In fact people have died because they discovered that truth doesn't agree with social conventions or notions and they were brave enough to speak out against the norm. They became ostracized and rejected by their peers and eventually their were martyred for their beliefs.

Sometimes, that is what it takes to stand on the side of truth.

-Finrock

P.S. As an example of disagreeing with Amonhi, I disagree with the premise of Amonhi's Brigham Young thread that was closed. I don't think Brigham Young was being serious. I think he was using theatrics and hyperbole to make a point. That context matters and I don't think in context Amonhi has a point.

I was just using hyperbole and theactics when I referred to you here as well Finrock. Don't get to worked up about it. Although I must admit you seem to spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to defend Amonhi in all his thoughts and essays. Are you one of the people who he has helped obtain their calling and election be made sure? Just curious.. You haven't said. I heard that we have others here who say they are part of the 144,000 commissioned to do what Amonhi is doing. Jeremy? Any others?

[Finrock]

Who made you the source of all truth when it comes to eternal doctrines of the gospel Amonhi? I know that Finrock seems to think that all you say here is infallible and 100% gospel truth but frankly you seem awfully presumptuous about your knowledge of spiritual things. Why do you think that you know exactly how the Lords atonement will effect every person in every circumstance? Do you really think you are that all knowing? You talk like it's a given that Joseph Fielding Smith is totally mistaken in his thoughts here about the atonement ( even though you admit to not even reading all those thoughts) and that you know all that the Lord will or won't require of every person in every circumstance. Ever considered that you might be the one who doesn't totally understand every ramification and consequence of every sin and circumstance? You are a very confident person I will give you that. Just consider that you might not KNOW as much as you THINK you know. Before correcting the Prophets on doctrine maybe you should realize that it might just be YOU who is mistaken in your VERY limited understanding of how the Lord works and what He will require of all His children in dealing with serious sin and transgression.

Mark,

Offering information and speaking about a subject matter that one has knowledge in, does not automatically include the presumption that one is the source of all truth. Meaning, Amonhi might know something about a particular subject matter, speak and teach about what he knows, and not feel that he is the source of all truth.

Given that, you present wise counsel when you invite Amonhi to consider that he might not know as much as he thinks he knows. The beginning of wisdom is knowing that you don't know. The depth of ignorance, and one of the worst conditions to be in, is thinking that you know when you don't know, or, put another way, not knowing that you don't know.

Have you considered, Mark, that Amonhi has already made the considerations that you suggest he do? Its also possible that Joseph Fielding Smith was mistaken and that Amonhi is right. No mortal is infallible. The content of your posts provides the perfect context in recognizing the importance of the Holy Ghost. Luckily we aren't left to trust in the arm of flesh, but we can know the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Ghost. Of course we need to be of the mentality where we recognize we might not know so that we can ask God questions. But, if we already think we know and don't need wisdom, we won't even take the time to ask for it.

Good thoughts, Mark!

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Who made you the source of all truth when it comes to eternal doctrines of the gospel Amonhi? I know that Finrock seems to think that all you say here is infallible and 100% gospel truth but frankly you seem awfully presumptuous about your knowledge of spiritual things.

Mark, you don't know any of that about me. In posts to you I have let you know that I don't believe everything Amonhi says. I have also very clearly spoken about the principle that I try to live by. If I don't think the Church Apostles are infallible, why would I think Amonhi is infallible? Or, if I have asserted that mortals are fallible, why would I make a special exception when it comes to Amonhi? I wouldn't and I don't. I am not a respecter of persons. I don't just agree with someone because we are on the same team. If I agree it is because I sense the truth in the words being spoken. There are now many examples on these forums where I have disagreed with Amonhi and where I have agreed with those who are showing me great disdain.

I'm on the team "Truth". That is why I keep speaking about intellectual courage. Sometimes the truth requires us to be disloyal to our social group. To be disloyal to one's social group because of principle takes courage because the consequences of no longer just going along or agreeing with untruth can have severe consequences. In fact people have died because they discovered that truth doesn't agree with social conventions or notions and they were brave enough to speak out against the norm. They became ostracized and rejected by their peers and eventually their were martyred for their beliefs.

Sometimes, that is what it takes to stand on the side of truth.

-Finrock

P.S. As an example of disagreeing with Amonhi, I disagree with the premise of Amonhi's Brigham Young thread that was closed. I don't think Brigham Young was being serious. I think he was using theatrics and hyperbole to make a point. That context matters and I don't think in context Amonhi has a point.

I was just using hyperbole and theactics when I referred to you here as well Finrock. Don't get to worked up about it. Although I must admit you seem to spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to defend Amonhi in all his thoughts and essays. Are you one of the people who he has helped obtain their calling and election be made sure? Just curious.. You haven't said. I heard that we have others here who say they are part of the 144,000 commissioned to do what Amonhi is doing. Jeremy? Any others?

Oh, okay, I didn't recognize what you wrote as hyperbole. There seems to be people who genuinely believe that I'm Amonhi's "puppy". Also, In the post in question, I was defending myself. The next post, I kinda defend Amonhi... :))

Look, I hate injustice. I hate when people are unfair and when people use tactics to try and tear a person down. It's my belief that we don't need to resort to unethical tactics even when we disagree with a person. I believe we should treat others with respect and give ear to the Spirit. When we are humble enough, we give ear even to the least amongst us. That doesn't mean we are spineless and don't stand on principle, but we ought not to go out of our way to harm or injure another. I'm a defender. I defended Emmanuel when he was posting here and was being treated like crap by a bunch of posters. It's not right so I open my mouth against it. It makes me feel good to do that even if can be frustrating at times and I succumb to my weakness.

I have learned many truths from Amonhi. There have been certain posts where the Spirit has undeniably witnessed to me that what is being said is true and it applies to me. I was led by the Spirit to this site and I have learned a tremendous amount of truth from not only Amonhi but many others. I defend Amonhi and I would defend you if someone came after you the way they are coming after Amonhi. I would do the same thing to anyone, if I perceive a person being unfairly attacked, ridiculed, or mocked. I almost can't help it. Its been built in to me. My life experiences have solidified that trait. At one point in my life I was treated so poorly, so unfairly, so wickedly, that I don't want that for anyone. That is the truth.

-Finrock

[Mark]

Who made you the source of all truth when it comes to eternal doctrines of the gospel Amonhi? I know that Finrock seems to think that all you say here is infallible and 100% gospel truth but frankly you seem awfully presumptuous about your knowledge of spiritual things.

Mark, you don't know any of that about me. In posts to you I have let you know that I don't believe everything Amonhi says. I have also very clearly spoken about the principle that I try to live by. If I don't think the Church Apostles are infallible, why would I think Amonhi is infallible? Or, if I have asserted that mortals are fallible, why would I make a special exception when it comes to Amonhi? I wouldn't and I don't. I am not a respecter of persons. I don't just agree with someone because we are on the same team. If I agree it is because I sense the truth in the words being spoken. There are now many examples on these forums where I have disagreed with Amonhi and where I have agreed with those who are showing me great disdain.

I'm on the team "Truth". That is why I keep speaking about intellectual courage. Sometimes the truth requires us to be disloyal to our social group. To be disloyal to one's social group because of principle takes courage because the consequences of no longer just going along or agreeing with untruth can have severe consequences. In fact people have died because they discovered that truth doesn't agree with social conventions or notions and they were brave enough to speak out against the norm. They became ostracized and rejected by their peers and eventually their were martyred for their beliefs.

Sometimes, that is what it takes to stand on the side of truth.

-Finrock

P.S. As an example of disagreeing with Amonhi, I disagree with the premise of Amonhi's Brigham Young thread that was closed. I don't think Brigham Young was being serious. I think he was using theatrics and hyperbole to make a point. That context matters and I don't think in context Amonhi has a point.

I was just using hyperbole and theactics when I referred to you here as well Finrock. Don't get to worked up about it. Although I must admit you seem to spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to defend Amonhi in all his thoughts and essays. Are you one of the people who he has helped obtain their calling and election be made sure? Just curious.. You haven't said. I heard that we have others here who say they are part of the 144,000 commissioned to do what Amonhi is doing. Jeremy? Any others?

Oh, okay, I didn't recognize what you wrote as hyperbole. There seems to be people who genuinely believe that I'm Amonhi's "puppy". Also, In the post in question, I was defending myself. The next post, I kinda defend Amonhi... :))

Look, I hate injustice. I hate when people are unfair and when people use tactics to try and tear a person down. It's my belief that we don't need to resort to unethical tactics even when we disagree with a person. I believe we should treat others with respect and give ear to the Spirit. When we are humble enough, we give ear even to the least amongst us. That doesn't mean we are spineless and don't stand on principle, but we ought not to go out of our way to harm or injure another. I'm a defender. I defended Emmanuel when he was posting here and was being treated like crap by a bunch of posters. It's not right so I open my mouth against it. It makes me feel good to do that even if can be frustrating at times and I succumb to my weakness.

I have learned many truths from Amonhi. There have been certain posts where the Spirit has undeniably witnessed to me that what is being said is true and it applies to me. I was led by the Spirit to this site and I have learned a tremendous amount of truth from not only Amonhi but many others. I defend Amonhi and I would defend you if someone came after you the way they are coming after Amonhi. I would do the same thing to anyone, if I perceive a person being unfairly attacked, ridiculed, or mocked. I almost can't help it. Its been built in to me. My life experiences have solidified that trait. At one point in my life I was treated so poorly, so unfairly, so wickedly, that I don't want that for anyone. That is the truth.

-Finrock

Fair enough brother. I don't really take these anonymous forums as seriously as you might I guess. I don't know a soul on this forum and for all I know the posting sources could be coming from a bunch of free spirits running around buck naked in their mommy's basement. :ymparty: I appreciate your need to defend what you perceive as the underdog as it were and wish you the best in your journey. No hard feelings in my participation here. I think Amonhi is getting a big belly laugh at everyone arguing over his pot stirring and this is how he gets his Jollys but who knows? Welcome to the LDS funny farm. Lots of bored people looking for their opportunity to be heard. My wife always said I was a little loonie. We know that women are always right. :))

[Finrock]

Mark, you don't know any of that about me. In posts to you I have let you know that I don't believe everything Amonhi says. I have also very clearly spoken about the principle that I try to live by. If I don't think the Church Apostles are infallible, why would I think Amonhi is infallible? Or, if I have asserted that mortals are fallible, why would I make a special exception when it comes to Amonhi? I wouldn't and I don't. I am not a respecter of persons. I don't just agree with someone because we are on the same team. If I agree it is because I sense the truth in the words being spoken. There are now many examples on these forums where I have disagreed with Amonhi and where I have agreed with those who are showing me great disdain.

I'm on the team "Truth". That is why I keep speaking about intellectual courage. Sometimes the truth requires us to be disloyal to our social group. To be disloyal to one's social group because of principle takes courage because the consequences of no longer just going along or agreeing with untruth can have severe consequences. In fact people have died because they discovered that truth doesn't agree with social conventions or notions and they were brave enough to speak out against the norm. They became ostracized and rejected by their peers and eventually their were martyred for their beliefs.

Sometimes, that is what it takes to stand on the side of truth.

-Finrock

P.S. As an example of disagreeing with Amonhi, I disagree with the premise of Amonhi's Brigham Young thread that was closed. I don't think Brigham Young was being serious. I think he was using theatrics and hyperbole to make a point. That context matters and I don't think in context Amonhi has a point.

I was just using hyperbole and theactics when I referred to you here as well Finrock. Don't get to worked up about it. Although I must admit you seem to spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to defend Amonhi in all his thoughts and essays. Are you one of the people who he has helped obtain their calling and election be made sure? Just curious.. You haven't said. I heard that we have others here who say they are part of the 144,000 commissioned to do what Amonhi is doing. Jeremy? Any others?

Oh, okay, I didn't recognize what you wrote as hyperbole. There seems to be people who genuinely believe that I'm Amonhi's "puppy". Also, In the post in question, I was defending myself. The next post, I kinda defend Amonhi... :))

Look, I hate injustice. I hate when people are unfair and when people use tactics to try and tear a person down. It's my belief that we don't need to resort to unethical tactics even when we disagree with a person. I believe we should treat others with respect and give ear to the Spirit. When we are humble enough, we give ear even to the least amongst us. That doesn't mean we are spineless and don't stand on principle, but we ought not to go out of our way to harm or injure another. I'm a defender. I defended Emmanuel when he was posting here and was being treated like crap by a bunch of posters. It's not right so I open my mouth against it. It makes me feel good to do that even if can be frustrating at times and I succumb to my weakness.

I have learned many truths from Amonhi. There have been certain posts where the Spirit has undeniably witnessed to me that what is being said is true and it applies to me. I was led by the Spirit to this site and I have learned a tremendous amount of truth from not only Amonhi but many others. I defend Amonhi and I would defend you if someone came after you the way they are coming after Amonhi. I would do the same thing to anyone, if I perceive a person being unfairly attacked, ridiculed, or mocked. I almost can't help it. Its been built in to me. My life experiences have solidified that trait. At one point in my life I was treated so poorly, so unfairly, so wickedly, that I don't want that for anyone. That is the truth.

-Finrock

Fair enough brother. I don't really take these anonymous forums as seriously as you might I guess. I don't know a soul on this forum and for all I know the posting sources could be coming from a bunch of free spirits running around buck naked in their mommy's basement. :ymparty: I appreciate your need to defend what you perceive as the underdog as it were and wish you the best in your journey. No hard feelings in my participation here. I think Amonhi is getting a big belly laugh at everyone arguing over his pot stirring and this is how he gets his Jollys but who knows? Welcome to the LDS funny farm. Lots of bored people looking for their opportunity to be heard. My wife always said I was a little loonie. We know that women are always right. :))

I get it and I understand what you mean when you say you don't really take these anonymous forums as seriously as I might. You are right, I don't really know anyone here. The truth is that even myself, although I might give people a lot of leeway, there is a part of me that is always suspicious and leery that someone is trying to take advantage and manipulate me and so I keep my guard up and there is a part of me that wishes that I could just be more trusting. So, I get what you are saying and I am aware of the potential for fraud and deception on the internet. For me personally, I have taken distrust too far in my life at times, and so I'm working on the right balance. And, frankly, I am working on just trusting in God and letting go of my worry and fears.

Here is where I philosophically differ from you. See, I don't really care if it's some clown in their mother's basement prancing around naked. What I care about is if they have the Holy Spirit. I try not to put limits on where and how God can speak to me. I look for certain attributes and traits to speech to determine if it is from the Good or from some other source. There are some things I have found to be absolutely reliable. One thing is love and charity. Also, the Good has a certain signature. There are certain signs we can look for. I've experienced God's love, independent of any person, and that love leaves an impression in my soul that I can use to gauge the worth of words. The Spirit is real and Jesus Christ is also my friend. He has coached me along the way and has taught me some things. None of this has come without struggle or without testing. I've had to figure some of these things out over time and I've learned to trust the voice of the Spirit, even when it seems unreasonable or logically hazardous to do so. So, my point is, I think these forums and I think these interactions are just as real and can be just as valid as any other communication or interaction that we have. I don't believe the internet and chat forums exist just as a function of mortal action, but I believe that the development of this technology has been guided by the Holy Spirit so that the Spirit can communicate and reach more and more individuals with the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's possible Amonhi is getting a big laugh seeing all these people react to what he is saying, but, honestly, in my view, based on his behavior and what I know to be the Good and what I have been taught independent of Amonhi, he doesn't appear to be a person who is just stirring the pot. He appears to be authentic in what he believes he is and his experiences. God taught me some things before I ever came here to this forum. The Spirit revealed some truths to me before I ever spoke with any person here. When I came here, I was surprised and pleased to find others who came from the same Mormon background as I had and who, seemingly, God had revealed the same things. In fact, it almost seemed to my paranoid mind that someone had been spying on me and was trying to manipulate me because I was seeing and hearing things that I had recently had revealed to me by the Holy Ghost, which things, by the way, were instrumental in bringing me out of a deep depression, in helping me to heal from the affects of abuse, etc. The fruits of the things that I had learned were good. Whereas I lived in misery and hell, after learning and applying the principles taught to me by the Spirit, I began to have peace and joy in life. Anyways, many of the things Amonhi teaches have been things that I, myself, have had revealed to me independent of him and independent of any individual on these forums and which I have learned to be good and true because they changed my life for the better.

I recognize that I'm being open and placing myself in a vulnerable position by posting this, but at the same time I do this purposefully because it feels like I should do it and also I don't want to be a slave to my fear and I want to be more open and humble than I have been in the past, so I am taking a personal risk for the sake of Goodness.

-Finrock