Brigham Young Blood Atonement - NOT LDS Doctrine

[Amonhi]

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.

When you know something, you know it. If you learned that 2 + 2 = 4 and someone said that 2 + 2 = 5 or any other number than 4, you would recognize it right off and be able to correct them. It is that simple. Jesus Christ personally explained the atonement to me and others who are Elliaison Contributors. It is so simple and perfect and flawless and completely misunderstood by the world, even the LDS Church members and leaders in general. It isn't based on the concept of an eye for an eye. Christ isn't the whipping boy.

The revelation of the atonement as taught includes exactly why how and what the atonement can cover, when it stops covering us and why and many other details. It explains the atonement clearly. This revelation to the world will not come through the LDS Prophet. It will be revealed by Elliaison to the world along with a number of other revelations.

You can think what you want about that, but it is clear that Joseph Fielding Smith viewed the spilling of blood as having a magical or special ability to forgive sin where as other options like hanging didn't.

Joseph Fielding Smith preached a version of Blood Atonement. My comments in blue.

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? (He's calling it a doctrine. It is not one of Christ's doctrines given when Christ said here are my doctrines and if anyone teaches more or less than this and calls it my doctrine, they cometh of evil. 3Ne. 11:40)

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.
(Instance 1 - this shows that he views the atonement incorrectly)
...

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. (Instance 2 - He is speaking as if the blood forgave sin.) 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. (Instance 3 - The blood is not what redeems.)

...

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; (He seems to indicate that if the man hangs, then his blood is not shed and so he does not get forgiven, but if he is shot, his blood is spilled and the man might be forgiven. Blood spilling has nothing to do with the atonement the way he is discribing.) 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.

Funny... I remember Judas hanging himself, not cutting or shooting or doing any number of things to have spilt his blood...

Matthew 27:5
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Peace,
Amonhi

[inho]

Funny... I remember Judas hanging himself, not cutting or shooting or doing any number of things to have spilt his blood...

Matthew 27:5
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Peace,
Amonhi

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

(Acts 1:18)

Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. It is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out.

“I will suffer my bowels to be taken out before I will forfeit the covenant I have made with Him and my brethren.” Do you understand me? Judas was like salt that had lost its saving principles—good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.

(HCK in JoD 6:125-126)

[Rachael]

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.

[Mark]

"The revelation of the atonement as taught includes exactly why how and what the atonement can cover, when it stops covering us and why and many other details. It explains the atonement clearly. This revelation to the world will not come through the LDS Prophet. It will be revealed by Elliaison to the world along with a number of other revelations."

You have once again exposed your true nature Amonhi. This thought goes totally contrary to true Priesthood Govt and the revelations given through the initial Prophet of this dispensation and many of the successive Prophets and Apostles. You sir are deceived. Please reevaluate your position. Elliaison is not Gods spokesman to His Saints. Who are these spiritually elite Elliaison members receiving Gods mind and will for all his children? How many Saints have even ever heard of this Elliaison group? 200?? This is bordering on the ridiculous. Beam me up Scotty. @-)

[Amonhi]

"The revelation of the atonement as taught includes exactly why how and what the atonement can cover, when it stops covering us and why and many other details. It explains the atonement clearly. This revelation to the world will not come through the LDS Prophet. It will be revealed by Elliaison to the world along with a number of other revelations."

You have once again exposed your true nature Amonhi. This thought goes totally contrary to true Priesthood Govt and the revelations given through the initial Prophet of this dispensation and many of the successive Prophets and Apostles. You sir are deceived. Please reevaluate your position. Elliaison is not Gods spokesman to His Saints. Who are these spiritually elite Elliaison members receiving Gods mind and will for all his children? How many Saints have even ever heard of this Elliaison group? 200?? This is bordering on the ridiculous. Beam me up Scotty. @-)

I didn't say to the Saints, I said they will reveal it to the world. True principles do not have to be revealed by the President of the Mormon church. They are not claiming to replace any person or leadership within the church. The fact is that they were given the revelation and told to reveal it. I am a witness to that revelation. When it comes down to it, you just have to wait and see what is revealed to know for sure if it really is true and came from God. Or, of course, in your ignorance you could deny it before you have the opportunity to know what you are denying.

Many Mormons think that it is impossible to become perfect in this life too. They picked it up from some place and assume it is true.

Peace,
Amonhi

[gclayjr]

Contemplator,

I am old enough to also remember the older version of the temple ritual. I was kind of tortured by knowing that what was being represented was false, and not knowing how to explain it without breaking covenants. I think you did that brilliantly.

The essence of it was that I would rather be killed than break my promise, made before God, not to disclose things that are sacred. The "penalties" were not logically connected to our covenants (obedience, sacrifice, etc.) but were mentioned in comparison to our willingness to disclose things we promised not to disclose.

Thank you,

George Clay

[Contemplator]

Thank you George, for adding your comment on this topic that is sacred but important.

[butterfly]

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 attended the temple before the "penalties" were removed in 1990. This characterization is incorrect. I suspect Butterfly refers to it because this mischaracterization is not uncommon. But, it is in error. There was no oath to allow ones life to be taken if you did not keep your covenants. This thread is about the fallacy of "blood atonement" ideas. I agree that blood atonement is a mistaken idea. And, it is not supported by past temple elements, either.

Thanks for pointing this out. As I stated, I never actually went through the temple when the penalties were still in place. I am just going off of what other endowed members who did experience it have told me.I'd appreciate your assurance of how the penalties didn't convey killing oneself. I've always found that troubling and would welcome any info you feel comfortable sharing.

This is a difficult one to answer because we can no longer go to the temple together and hear the wording in order to answer the question. And, I feel that these are sacred things that we are talking about. The temple and its ordinances have been an important part of my experience of coming to know Christ.

First, any notion of my having to shed my own blood, or have it shed, if I fail to fully live up to my covenants is wholly inconsistent with what we learn in the scriptures. Christ's atonement covers all of my sins except for the one where I, through the Holy Ghost, fully know of Christ's atonement and would then kill Him and turn away. So, except for perdition, Christ's atonement heals our sins. Thus, temple ordinances that teach otherwise would be surprising. So, odds are that any report of temple ordinances teaching such errors are not correct.

Second, the wording around the so-called "penalties" was definitive. The essence of it was that I would rather be killed than break my promise, made before God, not to disclose things that are sacred. The "penalties" were not logically connected to our covenants (obedience, sacrifice, etc.) but were mentioned in comparison to our willingness to disclose things we promised not to disclose. They are not an oath to take my own life but give weight to my commitment. For example, one might say, "I would rather die than fail at this task." It gives emphasis to my commitment.

Third, look at the ceremony as it exists today. The "penalties" were simply deleted without modifying the text around them. Listen carefully and you will find that while we receive covenants, tokens, signs and names, we are never tested on the covenants. We are never asked by messengers or by God how well we kept the covenants (other than not revealing certain things). After all, the Atonement covers our failures of obedience, sacrifice, etc., when we repent. The ceremony does not include any test of our keeping of the covenants. Rather, it tests us on our having received names, tokens and signs, as well as keeping them sacred. The "penalties" were in that same context, but only giving emphasis to how much we want to keep the things we receive sacred. The "penalties" were not given as actual consequences of breaking a covenant.

I understand, I am just some guy on the internet and you may, or may not, accept what I am saying here. But, the temple has been such a place of learning, peace, and of Christ in my life that I wanted to at least try to address this while being respectful of the sacred nature of the temple ordinances.

Thank you, it's nice to understand a different perspective. I like how you point out that we aren't tested on our covenants and so, logically, you couldn't be penalized for something you're not tested on.
I'm going to share your thoughts with a friend who is endowed and struggles with this part of the temple. It is helpful to me, I hope it'll be helpful to them.

[Finrock]

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

[Mark]

It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.

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

Thank you!

-Finrock

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

[Mark]

"The revelation of the atonement as taught includes exactly why how and what the atonement can cover, when it stops covering us and why and many other details. It explains the atonement clearly. This revelation to the world will not come through the LDS Prophet. It will be revealed by Elliaison to the world along with a number of other revelations."

You have once again exposed your true nature Amonhi. This thought goes totally contrary to true Priesthood Govt and the revelations given through the initial Prophet of this dispensation and many of the successive Prophets and Apostles. You sir are deceived. Please reevaluate your position. Elliaison is not Gods spokesman to His Saints. Who are these spiritually elite Elliaison members receiving Gods mind and will for all his children? How many Saints have even ever heard of this Elliaison group? 200?? This is bordering on the ridiculous. Beam me up Scotty. @-)

I didn't say to the Saints, I said they will reveal it to the world. True principles do not have to be revealed by the President of the Mormon church. They are not claiming to replace any person or leadership within the church. The fact is that they were given the revelation and told to reveal it. I am a witness to that revelation. When it comes down to it, you just have to wait and see what is revealed to know for sure if it really is true and came from God. Or, of course, in your ignorance you could deny it before you have the opportunity to know what you are denying.

Many Mormons think that it is impossible to become perfect in this life too. They picked it up from some place and assume it is true.

Peace,
Amonhi

You and your Elliaison cohorts are claiming spiritual superiority and elitism. Is the Lords Prophet not also a Prophet for all of Gods children? Why would the Lord come to a small group of self appointed Prophets like your Elliaison buddies who nobody knows squat about and frankly have never even heard of and start revealing true doctrines for all His children to understand? There is no order in that. In fact it goes completely contrary to Priesthood Govt. I could give you multiple quotes from Joseph and from the revelations of the Lord found in scripture to rebuff and disqualify your declaration here but since you and your bunch are a law unto themselves what would it matter? Suffice it to say that you are out of line with the Lords established Priesthood channels used by Him to communicate truths to ALL His children. You are deceived brother.

[Finrock]

"The revelation of the atonement as taught includes exactly why how and what the atonement can cover, when it stops covering us and why and many other details. It explains the atonement clearly. This revelation to the world will not come through the LDS Prophet. It will be revealed by Elliaison to the world along with a number of other revelations."

You have once again exposed your true nature Amonhi. This thought goes totally contrary to true Priesthood Govt and the revelations given through the initial Prophet of this dispensation and many of the successive Prophets and Apostles. You sir are deceived. Please reevaluate your position. Elliaison is not Gods spokesman to His Saints. Who are these spiritually elite Elliaison members receiving Gods mind and will for all his children? How many Saints have even ever heard of this Elliaison group? 200?? This is bordering on the ridiculous. Beam me up Scotty. @-)

I didn't say to the Saints, I said they will reveal it to the world. True principles do not have to be revealed by the President of the Mormon church. They are not claiming to replace any person or leadership within the church. The fact is that they were given the revelation and told to reveal it. I am a witness to that revelation. When it comes down to it, you just have to wait and see what is revealed to know for sure if it really is true and came from God. Or, of course, in your ignorance you could deny it before you have the opportunity to know what you are denying.

Many Mormons think that it is impossible to become perfect in this life too. They picked it up from some place and assume it is true.

Peace,
Amonhi

You and your Elliaison cohorts are claiming spiritual superiority and elitism. Is the Lords Prophet not also a Prophet for all of Gods children? Why would the Lord come to a small group of self appointed Prophets like your Elliaison buddies who nobody knows squat about and frankly have never even heard of and start revealing true doctrines for all His children to understand? There is no order in that. In fact it goes completely contrary to Priesthood Govt. I could give you multiple quotes from Joseph and from the revelations of the Lord found in scripture to rebuff and disqualify your declaration here but since you and your bunch are a law unto themselves what would it matter? Suffice it to say that you are out of line with the Lords established Priesthood channels used by Him to communicate truths to ALL His children. You are deceived brother.

Mark,

Please consider the following-

Special Pleading Fallacy:

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

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

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

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

-Finrock

[Mark]

"The revelation of the atonement as taught includes exactly why how and what the atonement can cover, when it stops covering us and why and many other details. It explains the atonement clearly. This revelation to the world will not come through the LDS Prophet. It will be revealed by Elliaison to the world along with a number of other revelations."

You have once again exposed your true nature Amonhi. This thought goes totally contrary to true Priesthood Govt and the revelations given through the initial Prophet of this dispensation and many of the successive Prophets and Apostles. You sir are deceived. Please reevaluate your position. Elliaison is not Gods spokesman to His Saints. Who are these spiritually elite Elliaison members receiving Gods mind and will for all his children? How many Saints have even ever heard of this Elliaison group? 200?? This is bordering on the ridiculous. Beam me up Scotty. @-)

I didn't say to the Saints, I said they will reveal it to the world. True principles do not have to be revealed by the President of the Mormon church. They are not claiming to replace any person or leadership within the church. The fact is that they were given the revelation and told to reveal it. I am a witness to that revelation. When it comes down to it, you just have to wait and see what is revealed to know for sure if it really is true and came from God. Or, of course, in your ignorance you could deny it before you have the opportunity to know what you are denying.

Many Mormons think that it is impossible to become perfect in this life too. They picked it up from some place and assume it is true.

Peace,
Amonhi

You and your Elliaison cohorts are claiming spiritual superiority and elitism. Is the Lords Prophet not also a Prophet for all of Gods children? Why would the Lord come to a small group of self appointed Prophets like your Elliaison buddies who nobody knows squat about and frankly have never even heard of and start revealing true doctrines for all His children to understand? There is no order in that. In fact it goes completely contrary to Priesthood Govt. I could give you multiple quotes from Joseph and from the revelations of the Lord found in scripture to rebuff and disqualify your declaration here but since you and your bunch are a law unto themselves what would it matter? Suffice it to say that you are out of line with the Lords established Priesthood channels used by Him to communicate truths to ALL His children. You are deceived brother.

Mark,

Please consider the following-

Special Pleading Fallacy:

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

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

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

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

-Finrock

If you haven't figured that out by now after having read all the scriptures and revelations and words from the Prophet Joseph and many other LDS Prophets and Apostles I can't help you Brother. How did the Lord protect His Saints from the deceptive and false voices who were declaring to them revelations outside of His Priesthood channels He had set up? Please go read the Doctrine & Covenants and see how the Lord Himself instructed the Saints that the revelations of Diety for the benefit of mankind needed to be received and transmitted for their benefit and all Gods children who would listen. Start with the first part of Section 43 and then look up the multiple accounts where the Lord insturcted the Saints at the time of the restoration of this dispensation how Priesthood Govt and order was used in relaying revelation to his children. Section 42 is another good section to read. Look at verse 11. I don't remember the Lord stating that He would authorize and appoint some anonymous obscure internet "prophets" like Amonhi or Elliaison (whatever or whoever that is) to speak in his behalf for the benefit of his children in revealing and clarifying doctrine. Think this through Brother...

[gclayjr]

Mark,

I just glanced at a new thread by JaredBees. He seems to be making similar assertions as Amonhi, and Finrock, and others.

I was surprised on an earlier thread by Amonhi, when I made what I thought was a fairly innocuous statement about how you could tell if someone was a false prophet, because if they weren't the appointed prophet for this dispensation, then revelations they received would either be for themselves, their stewardship, or personal edification, so If they were broadcasting a revelation for the Church or the world, you would immediately know they were a false prophet.

I actually didn't think this was so controversial, until I got hammered with amonhi's pages, and pages of aggressive writings, much of which not only misrepresented the scriptures, but misrepresented me, followed by the smug QED. I have proven my point. Even when I tried to correct him about both his assertions and his misrepresentations of me, I would just get more vomiting of words, followed by a snarky assertion, that he has proven his point, and nobody has shown a single error in his sources or logic.

Then his puppies like Finrock, started jumping out defending Amonhi, like he was the second Moses, and often making similar claims for themselves as Amonhi, and several threads started showing up in LDSFF, like the the one I just saw by JaredBees (and investigator...and I don't know how many others), proclaiming similar wonderful news about his/their revelations, and how we would get such great joy if we only followed him or at least that book...Visions of Glory.

I know I live out in the wilderness of SE Pennsylvania, where I am more likely to see boatloads of Amish, than a single fundamentalist Mormon, or any other split off from the LDS church. In fact, their are many more of them here than TB Mormons ( they also have a more live and let live attitude than many of these posters here ... not a single one of them claims that the Mormon Church is either fallen, or that we are a bunch of heretics, or even that we should become Amish).

Is this a new phenomenon? Have you guys had a particularly big harvest of Peyote? Has this been going on a long time out there and I just haven't seen it out here in the wilderness? What is going on?

Regards,

George Clay

[Finrock]

I didn't say to the Saints, I said they will reveal it to the world. True principles do not have to be revealed by the President of the Mormon church. They are not claiming to replace any person or leadership within the church. The fact is that they were given the revelation and told to reveal it. I am a witness to that revelation. When it comes down to it, you just have to wait and see what is revealed to know for sure if it really is true and came from God. Or, of course, in your ignorance you could deny it before you have the opportunity to know what you are denying.

Many Mormons think that it is impossible to become perfect in this life too. They picked it up from some place and assume it is true.

Peace,
Amonhi

You and your Elliaison cohorts are claiming spiritual superiority and elitism. Is the Lords Prophet not also a Prophet for all of Gods children? Why would the Lord come to a small group of self appointed Prophets like your Elliaison buddies who nobody knows squat about and frankly have never even heard of and start revealing true doctrines for all His children to understand? There is no order in that. In fact it goes completely contrary to Priesthood Govt. I could give you multiple quotes from Joseph and from the revelations of the Lord found in scripture to rebuff and disqualify your declaration here but since you and your bunch are a law unto themselves what would it matter? Suffice it to say that you are out of line with the Lords established Priesthood channels used by Him to communicate truths to ALL His children. You are deceived brother.

Mark,

Please consider the following-

Special Pleading Fallacy:

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

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

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

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

-Finrock

If you haven't figured that out by now after having read all the scriptures and revelations and words from the Prophet Joseph and many other LDS Prophets and Apostles I can't help you Brother. How did the Lord protect His Saints from the deceptive and false voices who were declaring to them revelations outside of His Priesthood channels He had set up? Please go read the Doctrine & Covenants and see how the Lord Himself instructed the Saints that the revelations of Diety for the benefit of mankind needed to be received and transmitted for their benefit and all Gods children who would listen. Start with the first part of Section 43 and then look up the multiple accounts where the Lord insturcted the Saints at the time of the restoration of this dispensation how Priesthood Govt and order was used in relaying revelation to his children. Section 42 is another good section to read. Look at verse 11. I don't remember the Lord stating that He would authorize and appoint some anonymous obscure internet "prophets" like Amonhi or Elliaison (whatever or whoever that is) to speak in his behalf for the benefit of his children in revealing and clarifying doctrine. Think this through Brother...

I get all of that and I don't even disagree. It's just the irony, Mark. The hypocrisy. Can't you see it? Can't you see that you are saying, Hey, you are elitist and why would God reveal things for the whole world to this small special group, but you yourself accept the fact that God is, relatively speaking, revealing things to just a small special group, the LDS Apostles. Do you know that relative to the world, that we are obscure? We are but a small drop in the bucket and the vast majority of the world have never heard of us or will never hear, accept, or have anything to do with our prophets. They could and many would say the same thing to us, yet, you would justify in your mind how the criticism you just applied to Amonhi doesn't apply to you.

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

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

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

get all of that and I don't even disagree. It's just the irony, Mark. The hypocrisy. Can't you see it? Can't you see that you are saying, Hey, you are elitist and why would God reveal things for the whole world to this small special group, but you yourself accept the fact that God is, relatively speaking, revealing things to just a small special group, the LDS Apostles.

I get it. You do not believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, and what is taught there

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

We should do those things the prophets tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray:

However, I don't get the logic you use to claim that Mark is a "Hypocrite"? A hypocrite, is someone who preaches one thing then then does another. Mark has been straight down the line about believing in the truth of the LDS church and not only that which is taught in the standard works, but the truths revealed though our current leadership. In fact, it his his strict following of these teachings that you criticize him for. So while I know you don't believe these teachings yourself, under what twisting of the English language do you come up with a hypocritical Mark?

If anything, there is a better argument for Amonhi, and you being hypocrites, Because while you both obviously have great opposition to the Church's teachings, you go through all kinds of gymnastics to not be willing to cleanly say that you don't believe in the Church, and think that the leaders are NOT God's representatives on this earth. So I guess what ever claims they make of being such, as in the quote above, must be from Satan!

So please help me understand this word "Hypocrite"?

Thank You

George Clay

[Finrock]

Finrock,

get all of that and I don't even disagree. It's just the irony, Mark. The hypocrisy. Can't you see it? Can't you see that you are saying, Hey, you are elitist and why would God reveal things for the whole world to this small special group, but you yourself accept the fact that God is, relatively speaking, revealing things to just a small special group, the LDS Apostles.

I get it. You do not believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, and what is taught there

Another false accusation and assertion. I believe in the Church and what is taught there.

When you are ready to be sincere and stop asking loaded questions, then we can have a discussion, and I'll happily answer your questions.

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

Another false accusation and assertion. I believe in the Church and what is taught there.

yet you refute

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

We should do those things the prophets tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray:

Mark defends this teaching. You call him a hypocrite.

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

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

Regards,

George Clay


]

[eddie]

Mark,

I just glanced at a new thread by JaredBees. He seems to be making similar assertions as Amonhi, and Finrock, and others.

I was surprised on an earlier thread by Amonhi, when I made what I thought was a fairly innocuous statement about how you could tell if someone was a false prophet, because if they weren't the appointed prophet for this dispensation, then revelations they received would either be for themselves, their stewardship, or personal edification, so If they were broadcasting a revelation for the Church or the world, you would immediately know they were a false prophet.

I actually didn't think this was so controversial, until I got hammered with amonhi's pages, and pages of aggressive writings, much of which not only misrepresented the scriptures, but misrepresented me, followed by the smug QED. I have proven my point. Even when I tried to correct him about both his assertions and his misrepresentations of me, I would just get more vomiting of words, followed by a snarky assertion, that he has proven his point, and nobody has shown a single error in his sources or logic.

Then his puppies like Finrock, started jumping out defending Amonhi, like he was the second Moses, and often making similar claims for themselves as Amonhi, and several threads started showing up in LDSFF, like the the one I just saw by JaredBees (and investigator...and I don't know how many others), proclaiming similar wonderful news about his/their revelations, and how we would get such great joy if we only followed him or at least that book...Visions of Glory.

I know I live out in the wilderness of SE Pennsylvania, where I am more likely to see boatloads of Amish, than a single fundamentalist Mormon, or any other split off from the LDS church. In fact, their are many more of them here than TB Mormons ( they also have a more live and let live attitude than many of these posters here ... not a single one of them claims that the Mormon Church is either fallen, or that we are a bunch of heretics, or even that we should become Amish).

Is this a new phenomenon? Have you guys had a particularly big harvest of Peyote? Has this been going on a long time out there and I just haven't seen it out here in the wilderness? What is going on?

Regards,

George Clay

George, I also noticed that jaredbees is making similar assertions? It surprised me! Its not a new phenomenon, we are told in the latter days even the very elect will be deceived. but come on, these puppies are being deceived by the likes of Amonhi? #-o

[Mark]

You and your Elliaison cohorts are claiming spiritual superiority and elitism. Is the Lords Prophet not also a Prophet for all of Gods children? Why would the Lord come to a small group of self appointed Prophets like your Elliaison buddies who nobody knows squat about and frankly have never even heard of and start revealing true doctrines for all His children to understand? There is no order in that. In fact it goes completely contrary to Priesthood Govt. I could give you multiple quotes from Joseph and from the revelations of the Lord found in scripture to rebuff and disqualify your declaration here but since you and your bunch are a law unto themselves what would it matter? Suffice it to say that you are out of line with the Lords established Priesthood channels used by Him to communicate truths to ALL His children. You are deceived brother.

Mark,

Please consider the following-

Special Pleading Fallacy:

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

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

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

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

-Finrock

If you haven't figured that out by now after having read all the scriptures and revelations and words from the Prophet Joseph and many other LDS Prophets and Apostles I can't help you Brother. How did the Lord protect His Saints from the deceptive and false voices who were declaring to them revelations outside of His Priesthood channels He had set up? Please go read the Doctrine & Covenants and see how the Lord Himself instructed the Saints that the revelations of Diety for the benefit of mankind needed to be received and transmitted for their benefit and all Gods children who would listen. Start with the first part of Section 43 and then look up the multiple accounts where the Lord insturcted the Saints at the time of the restoration of this dispensation how Priesthood Govt and order was used in relaying revelation to his children. Section 42 is another good section to read. Look at verse 11. I don't remember the Lord stating that He would authorize and appoint some anonymous obscure internet "prophets" like Amonhi or Elliaison (whatever or whoever that is) to speak in his behalf for the benefit of his children in revealing and clarifying doctrine. Think this through Brother...

I get all of that and I don't even disagree. It's just the irony, Mark. The hypocrisy. Can't you see it? Can't you see that you are saying, Hey, you are elitist and why would God reveal things for the whole world to this small special group, but you yourself accept the fact that God is, relatively speaking, revealing things to just a small special group, the LDS Apostles. Do you know that relative to the world, that we are obscure? We are but a small drop in the bucket and the vast majority of the world have never heard of us or will never hear, accept, or have anything to do with our prophets. They could and many would say the same thing to us, yet, you would justify in your mind how the criticism you just applied to Amonhi doesn't apply to you.

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

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

-Finrock

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

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

[Finrock]

Mark,

Please consider the following-

Special Pleading Fallacy:

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

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

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

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

-Finrock

If you haven't figured that out by now after having read all the scriptures and revelations and words from the Prophet Joseph and many other LDS Prophets and Apostles I can't help you Brother. How did the Lord protect His Saints from the deceptive and false voices who were declaring to them revelations outside of His Priesthood channels He had set up? Please go read the Doctrine & Covenants and see how the Lord Himself instructed the Saints that the revelations of Diety for the benefit of mankind needed to be received and transmitted for their benefit and all Gods children who would listen. Start with the first part of Section 43 and then look up the multiple accounts where the Lord insturcted the Saints at the time of the restoration of this dispensation how Priesthood Govt and order was used in relaying revelation to his children. Section 42 is another good section to read. Look at verse 11. I don't remember the Lord stating that He would authorize and appoint some anonymous obscure internet "prophets" like Amonhi or Elliaison (whatever or whoever that is) to speak in his behalf for the benefit of his children in revealing and clarifying doctrine. Think this through Brother...

I get all of that and I don't even disagree. It's just the irony, Mark. The hypocrisy. Can't you see it? Can't you see that you are saying, Hey, you are elitist and why would God reveal things for the whole world to this small special group, but you yourself accept the fact that God is, relatively speaking, revealing things to just a small special group, the LDS Apostles. Do you know that relative to the world, that we are obscure? We are but a small drop in the bucket and the vast majority of the world have never heard of us or will never hear, accept, or have anything to do with our prophets. They could and many would say the same thing to us, yet, you would justify in your mind how the criticism you just applied to Amonhi doesn't apply to you.

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

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

-Finrock

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

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

Were those rhetorical questions or did you want actual responses? If you are sincere, I will sincerely answer.

-Finrock

[Rachael]

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.

[Rachael]

It doesn't matter if BY was just using theatrics or hyperboles. Innocent people were murdered because of BA doctrine taught from the pulpit. MMM is an example. I'm glad that it was officially renounced I'm 2010. I'm glad that the temple endowment gradually quit all the blood oaths. But part of repentance should include owning it in our past, but at least forsaking it is some progress.

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

Thank you!

-Finrock

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

(-|

[Rachael]

Finrock,

Another false accusation and assertion. I believe in the Church and what is taught there.

yet you refute

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

We should do those things the prophets tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray:

Mark defends this teaching. You call him a hypocrite.

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

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

Regards,

George Clay

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

[gclayjr]

Rachael,

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

Rachael. Do you have the same problem with English as Finrock? I haven't been following your posts.

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

Since I don't follow your posts, I don't know if you are open and clear about it, which if true, would mean that we don't agree, but you are NOT a hypocrite. Or do you play endless word games claiming

Another false accusation and assertion. I believe in the Church and what is taught there.

as did Finrock?

The dictionary definition of Hypocrisy is:

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

What FInrock (and you) criticize Mark and me for is continually (mindlessly) standing up for those truths professed by the LDS church and their leaders, that you think are false.

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

Regards,

George Clay