Jason

I am the god of Mormon history and theology. Course, you might not like how I interpret the data, but that's another issue entirely. B)

Kind of a silly question don't you think? Well you said that you never said you said it was false. So it's on the fence. You could be like some apostates who are just annoyed, but never denied the gospel. So what is it. Humor me why dont ya. Is truth present? Yes. But as the LDS church expresses it? No. Ambiguous answer? Absolutely!

That's not true, or you wouldn't be participating in this and other threads. Jason, Yeah, you caught me I do like to conjecture on things. What I MEANT was that I don't know, don't care, and someday will be told, and that is okay with me... Does that clarify it?? Yeah, but again, if you didn't care, you wouldn't be here.

That's not true, or you wouldn't be participating in this and other threads.

Kind of a silly question don't you think?

Really? Does that explain why the Israelites killed every man, woman and child in the land when they moved to Canaan? No, it does not. Maybe you're not familiar with 19th Century Anti-Mormon literature, but there are half a dozen books written by non and ex LDS about being run out on a rail in Utah. People who feared for their lives under Brigham Young's rule. I'll do a google search on the titles if you need me to. Im not making the argument that the LDS Church is false based on this single issue. I've never, ever, ever said that, and I really wish you'd stop parroting it.

Have you read Exodus? Do you know that Gentiles were put to death for violating Israelite laws? What makes you think BY would have dealt differently? As I said, thank God the LDS Church is more sensible today. Yeah, I know.

Im still waiting for a brave soul to respond to this mighty challenge!

Let me make two final comments on this, and I'll let it go. First, this doctrine, blood atonement, needs to be looked at in the bigger picture, and placed in historical context. For all the newer Mormons on this board, there was a time when Mormonism was planning on taking over the world. That might sound a bit incredible, but there was an organization formed by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo called the Council of Fifty. These Fifty men were to set up a political government, a theocracy, governed by the restored priesthood. Both Brigham Young and Jedidiah M. Grant belonged to this quorum. Given that blood atonement cannot properly be exercised by a religious organization, we have to look at what a state government could do, and apply this teaching to that organization. The Council of Fifty would be just such an organization which in theory, would control those functions which are outside the bounds of what the Church does as an organization. Granted, the Council of Fifty never bloomed, and all the members of this council died by the early 20th century. But had it taken root, and had the State of Deseret been formed, we can safely speculate that blood atonement would have been in place, and exercised on any and all LDS dissidents within the State. Some LDS apologists have argued that plural marriage is a doctrine of the Priesthoood, but not of the Church, which is why Joseph Smith practiced it in Nauvoo, but was able to deny that it was a doctrine of the Church. The same could be said for blood atonement, that it too may be a doctrine of the Priesthood, but not a doctrine of the church. A scary thought. One which all should ponder. Just a few thoughts of mine on this. ---------- Finally, as far as the big picture, I think it should be clear to anyone claiming to have the Spirit of God guiding them, that blood atonement is as wicked and evil a teaching as the Devil could ever produce. It is not a teaching of Jesus Christ, nor does it derive from that glorious Being in the Heavens. We should be glad that this doctrine of Brigham Young's (along with his other pet doctrines like Adam-God, and Blacks and the Priesthood, etc) have been repudiated by the modern LDS Church. Bravo to you, and may I add, that I pray your church will continue to find the peaceful path of Christ.

Why would that matter? Do you really believe that the remnant of God's elect will be putting out nifty PR commercials and sending out boys on bikes? No, that's just a borrowed myth from paganism. If it actually happened, then yes. A mere fraction of the Old Testament is inspired of God. The rest is garbage. This is the historical difficulty that so many LDS seem to not understand. Granted that today's conference talks are not considered "doctrine" but in the 19th century, if it was spoken from the Bowery, it was no different than the Standard Works. I don't understand why people cannot comprehend that. Why don't you take up your quad and look up prophets in the Bible Dictionary. There are Sixteen men sustained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. They are the First Presidency (3) the Quorum of the Twelve (12) and the Patriarch of the Church (1). Only Fifteen are so sustained anymore, but up until 1978, there were Sixteen.

a-train, Your argument seems valid, but I've only pointed out one of the several sermons on this subject. A quick examination of other sermons does not limit the idea of Blood Atonement to only back-sliding Mormons. Brigham Young applies it to anyone not following Mormon doctrine. These "people" as he refers to them, need to die to "save them". http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_04/refJDvol4-10.html

a-train, Other than not contributing to this thread, what was the point of your post? Quoting Grant in context with a provided url link is hardly an "anti-mormon" tactic. It was to help those who don't know what was once taught. It may not matter today, but it mattered then and that is the point.

All in good fun, Jason...it's cool, I AM a noob! But just you watch me grow!!! Hey, you can be my "chia pet" and I'll watch you grow!

Hey! Jason! Great to see you're back posting here too!! :) It may be temporary. We'll see.

Click on the "Portal" button. Look at the right windows.

That wasn't a "belittlement" AK. It was just a light jab.

Both came around the 1950's I believe. But the accusation was that nobody has had fewer problems. No other qualification was expressed or implied.

One day we'll wake up in our homes...and the big red eye will say.... "Good morning Dave."

Yeah well if I could recapture my old ID "Koheleth" I'd have a few hundred more myself. And my keyboard doesn't need to be big....I've got it where it counts.

Funny that Im still in the HoF considering my leave of absence.

I miss Antishock.

Perhaps the problem stems from the fact that many LDS have so many children of their own, that taking on someone else's kid even for a day seems overwhelming? Im not trying to make a bigoted statement here folks, just a casual observation about what could be the underlying problem in the OP's ward.

Anyone who advocates having your neck slit from ear to ear in order to atone for sins is crazy. I cannot worry about stepping on every bleeding heart that comes along. If it hurts you that I insult a man who's been dead for 130 years, that's your problem. They were doctrine then. Just because your church denies them today doesn't change that. Well forgive me for not taking your personal opinion on the matter seriously. I doubt you've studied this issue very much, nor have you looked into Juanita Brooks' text, spoken with Gene Sessions at Weber State, nor done much of anything else outside this thread. You're wrong. I'd like it in a jpeg or gif format posted to your controls page please. And I hope you don't have man-boobs. The Urantia group has fewer problems. Those who advocate the teachings of Seth have fewer problems. Im sure I can find quite a few more, but those come off the top of my head.

An example from Elder Jedidiah M. Grant of the First Presidency: REBUKING INIQUITY http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_04/refJDvol4-9.html

They do it at the Manti pageant as well.