a-train

Jason, You are right, that wasn't God speaking. That was Moses speaking. In the first verse he said: 'Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei.' Once again, the people of Israel were not herein commanded to kill anyone for a lack of faith, but they were to defend themselves against brutal attackers led by a murderous dictator. These combatants of Og were not only an army, but included 'all his people'. This instance serves well to demonstrate that Moses and the Children of Israel were sanctioned by God to defend themselves against the armies of attacking nations who sought their destruction, but it provides no indication that God commanded in any case that believers were to hunt and destroy the non-believers because they would not follow God. Now look at what a stretch the antis must go to in efforts to demonstrate some connection between the teachings of President Young and the brutal murder of a peaceful group of travellers in Utah. It is only upon the foundation of great interpolation that one can erect a bridge over the gap between the two. -a-train

Perhaps you can help me locate the commandment from the LORD to the ancient Israelites to utterly destroy all the unbelievers in and around Canaan. -a-train

Perhaps you didn't read all of my post. I specifically mentioned the Canaanites that dwelled among Israel. An appeal to scripture to assert they 'wipe[d] out all of Canaan' would be fruitless. The scriptures state plainly that did NOT happen. -a-train

Did they kill every man, woman and child in the land when they moved to Canaan? Now the Midianites and Moabites were among those who sought the destruction of early Israel. Numbers 22 confirms that it was territorial concerns that motivated the Midianites to attack Israel. Now if Balak had not sought the destruction of Israel, would he have been entangled in war? What was Moses command to the armies of Israel concerning the attacking Midianites? 'Go kill every man, woman and child in the land'? Did they go out in search of all Midianites in the territory and hunt them down to their extinction? Did Israel attack them because they weren't living the Laws of God? Didn't Moses say: 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves'? And didn't they spare those Midianites who stayed themselves and rose not against Israel? Why did the Midianites continue to exist for decades afterward if they had been utterly destroyed by Israel? What about Rahab, the harlot who was spared by Joshua (Josh 2:1, Heb 11:31, James 2:25) during Israel's entry into Canaan? What about the Canaanites who dwelled among Ephraim (Josh 16:10)? Why did Joshua warn against marrying and worshipping the gods of gentiles that remained 'among' Israel? (Josh 23) Old Utah and Old Israel were the same. The LORD's prophets only sought to preserve the people and their land from attacking enemies who sought their annihilation. They did NOT seek to embark on a crusade killing all unbelievers in their path. Once again, an appeal to Presdient Young's assertion of similitude of Utah to Israel to demonstrate the intentions and practices among LDS Leadership does not at all implicate them, but if indeed they did as Moses and Joshua, they are therefore blameless. -a-train

Six, When asked 'if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven,' Brigham Young answered, 'no, they were not, there were no neutral [spirits] in heaven at the time of the rebellion, all took sides.... All spirits are pure that came from the presence of God.' (Journal History, 25 December 1869, citing Wilford Woodruff's journal.) Now, I have heard the old falsehood that black skin is an indication that the spirit possessing such a body failed to stand with the valiant spirits in heaven in support of the Lamb of God. I also know that Bruce R. McConkie was compelled to make many changes to his book Mormon Doctrine by the First Presidency and the Twelve, changes that included the deletion of the notion of neutrality of blacks in the war in heaven. Now I honor and respect Bruce R. McConkie. In fact I celebrate him as a scholar and great Elder in this dispensation. But we must also recognize the enormity of the task he set out to do in creating his volume that has come under the microscope of judgement so scrutinously. I applaud him in his efforts and have read the book many times, but I also must acknowledge that in this particular he was compelled to correct the book that it may stand in concordance with the teachings of the Prophets such as what President Young taught on December 25, 1869. Now I do believe we are for the most part saying the same thing. Allow me to place emphasis on Alma 13:3 which as you quoted says: 'And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.' Let us not enter into the old philosophical debates about whether such foreknowledge of God negates man's agency. Let us also be aware that Alma was speaking about the agency of man within mortality and their choosing between good and evil here in the Second Estate, after the fall. (Read Chapter 12) And let us also be in rememberance that the Priesthood we are speaking of is something obtained in connection with the Second Estate and the exceeding faith and good works, the selection of good, and the reception of the holy calling of this Priesthood are activities within the Second Estate and no valiance in the First Estate automatically qualifies a man to this Priesthood, but he must be worthy here also. Therefore, as we have been told repeatedly, the foreordination men obtained in the pre-mortal world is of no effect when transgression and unworthiness prevents them from being chosen in this world. We all know many are called, but few are chosen. Let us not therefore assume that a man who did not obtain the Priesthood within his mortality was not foreordained to such because of some unworthiness carried with him from the First Estate. BUT!!!, Let us ALSO not automatically suppose that a man who did not obtain the Priesthood in this world did not do so because of transgression or unworthiness. I didn't receive the keys to the Bishoprick in my ward, is that because my Bishop is more righteous than I? Were the Levites more righteous than the rest of Israel who did not receive the Aaronic Priesthood? Let us understand that as long as we are worthy and willing to fulfill our callings, whatever they are, we will be blessed by the LORD and we will eventually receive all the ordinances, Priesthoods, washings, anointings, blessings, and sealings the LORD has in store for those that have faith in the Saviour and live the Gospel, we will receive all this in the due time of the LORD and no sooner. GOD BLESS -a-train

OK, help me, a young man whose quest for knowledge is in it's beginnings. Perhaps I will fester a wound here, but I hope to aquire knowledge of healing and not pick at old injuries. Was there no race which sprang from Ham, 'which preserved the curse in the land'? Consider Noah's dealings with Pharoah who Abraham called 'a righteous man'. Did Noah suffer from the same 'misunderstanding' as Brigham Young when he 'cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood'? Was Pharoah's lineage not 'that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood'? Did not President Young tell us that the Priesthood would eventually go forth to that race in the due time of the LORD? Did he not also tell us that the so-called whites are NOT white really, and that after the fall we ALL became slaves? Then there comes the question of why. Why was there a 'lineage by which [one] could not have the right of Priesthood'? Why was the righteous man Pharoah, who sought 'earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom' 'cursed' 'pertaining to the Priesthood'? Perhaps we could ask why so many have been consigned to pass through mortality and into death without the priesthood. What about the Gospel at all? Or, why would the earth have need of the time period from the Great Apostasy to the Restoration wherein the Church was hidden in the wilderness from the world? How many perished in the Great Diluge without a knowledge of the Gospel? How many Chinese are dying daily right now with no intimation of the Restoration or of our LORD's ministry? Why? Why? Why? Ahh. I am confident in believing that it all has a wise purpose in the LORD. He knows the hearts and minds of His children and has placed us all in this world that we may each pass specific tests in the developement of our own souls. We LDS have benefit of the notion that the LORD's work in the individual's developement did NOT begin at temporal birth and does not end with temporal death. Let us not assume therefore that the great spectrum of diversity manifested in the various scenarios of each individual's mortality suggest an unfairness or a respect of persons on the LORD's part or that of his servants. Let us also understand that mortality is NOT a just reward for the works of pre-mortal existance or those of the flesh, but it is 'a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.' (Alma 42:4) -a-train

Yes. Yes. and Nothing. 'One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.' (Num 15:15-16) 'And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them. But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.' (Num 15:27-31) Moses and President Young agree and teach the same thing. Cutting off from among the people is for those who 'doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger', not for those who sin 'by ignorance before the LORD' for the Atonement has been made 'for him; and it shall be forgiven him.' Now, again, the Arkansans were not taken into judgement before any committee and sentenced to death for certain crimes. They were not found in contempt of any covenants they had made by any body of Church Leadership. Any appeal by the killers to justify their murder by any 'blood atonement' doctrine was unfounded. Of course the killers assert that Church Leadership ordered the killing, but how are we to take that from those whose integrity is in shambles? Now if the asserted interpretation of the quoted discourses was prevalent throughout the territory, why was this treatment limited to the Fancher party and not extended by other members of the Church to other parties? I can't speak to what was going through the heads of the killers. Perhaps they DID think they were doing the will of God in performing some sort of atonement, but this would not be in accordance with the two discourses herein offered and their understanding would have needed supplemental teaching to arrive at such a conclusion. And again, even if President Young had trotted down to Mountain Meadows and did the thing himself, would it prove the message of the Restored Gospel false? NOPE. -a-train

Jason, Did you miss the opening statement of this discourse?: Perhaps you overlooked the sentence just preceding your citation also: 'Cut off' is a statement in the scriptures and throughout many latter-day talks that can be used to refer to sending individuals out from the midst of the covenant people and should not be limited to the notion of the death penalty only. It is possible you also missed the fact that President Young mentioned that exact notion in this very talk: Also: Perhaps you also bypassed the two small paragraphs replaced by [....] in your quote: Now can we retain our integrity and assert that his statements are to the effect that those outside the covenant who don't live accordingly are to be put to death? Were the children of Israel uncircumcised gentiles? He said: 'As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day...' What ancient days? He just told us! During the Exodus. Who was in the Exodus? 'Noobs' with no understanding of the Covenants of God? I believe God to be a lot more just than that and the people of Israel couldn't 'enter into His rest in the flesh, because of their transgressions', not because of their ignorance and lack of accountability. Most importantly, as I already indicated above about Elder Grant's discourse, this talk in no way presents any notion that members of the LDS Church are to begin randomly judging the worthiness of their fellow man and put to death those found so unworthy. -a-train P.S. We are still planning on taking over the earth.

The anti's draw a line linking sermons like Elder Grant's to the Mountain Meadows massacre. Now who was he saying must endure capital punishment? 'Some have received the Priesthood and a knowledge of the things of God, and still they dishonor the cause of truth, commit adultery, and every other abomination beneath the heavens, and then meet you here or in the street, and deny it.' Would this apply to the Fancher party? Should we deduce that the killers of the Arkansans were so disposed to shed blood because they believed their victims to be covenant breakers? Had the travelers once been Priesthood holders and endowed members of the Restored Church? Were they taken before a committee of Elders and held in counsel? Were they found guilty therein of sins grave and terrible? As far as I can tell the history books all agree. The above questions can all be answered negatively. Let us imagine the killers did believe that the party was guilty of some great covenant breaking act of dishonor worthy of capital punishment. When was their trial? What quorum pronounced them guilty? Their act of murder did not follow the counsel of Elder Grant at all for he said: 'appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood'. These killed without such a committee, or they appointed themselves as such which has always clearly been outside the proper methods by which the LORD appoints stewards over Church activities. Furthermore, the counsel of Elder Grant said also: 'you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid.' Now, he did not say: 'We intend to come out and kill you against your will.' He counsels the wicked to come willingly. It is only possible for the Mountain Meadows killers to have found justification for their murders by an appeal to talks such as this through great re-interpretation and a wresting of the words of Church Leaders. A talk like this serves no purpose to implicate the First Presidency, but on the contrary only assists to exonerate them. -a-train

When I was 18, I was on a trip through Utah and going skateboarding with some locals I rode with them in their car. Most of them were young Priests who didn't even know whether I was Mormon or not, they never asked. As we were driving one of them said: 'Hey, I gotta get home. My dad is making me go to some fireside.' Another replied with great sarcasm: 'Yeah dude, you don't want to... DIS..honor your priesthood.' They all sneered in laughter. I clasped the door handle as I sat in the back seat, ready to eject and roll clear from the vehicle in the event that lightning would strike! Was this a typical rendition of the Utah attitude prevalent in the Church? I honestly doubt it. Is it typical of snot-nosed teens world-wide? EMPHATICALLY YES!!! I think Utah Mormons are held to a higher standard and don't have the availability to blend in with the 'gentiles' as we do out here in the 'wilderness'. -a-train

You know, the best lies are those that are true. Satan said: 'your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.' (Gen 3:5) Was this true? YES. Was it besides the point? YES. And there is the problem. Satan left that part out. Was Elder Grant a Prophet? YES. A Seer? YES. A Revelator? YES. Did he advocate capital punishment? YES. Do the LDS believe that it would be better to die than break covenants? YES. Does the validity of the LDS message rest on the answers to these questions? NO. There is the problem. It is the same old thing always, the antis will never have another method. They always point to things that really don't matter in the end. Were Adam and Eve any less fallen because of their new knowledge of good and evil? Were they any less dead? Nope. The knowledge obtained in partaking of the fruit didn't negate the reality of death. Imagine Satan saying a couple of years after the fall: 'See, you guys aren't dead. That is evidence of the fact that God just didn't know what he was talking about!' Imagine the children of Adam saying: 'Dad, we are not fallen, that's crazy! Nobody is going to die, that has never happened.' In the end, the LORD's word was verified and nothing else mattered. Just the same, the LORD has brought about a marvelous work and a wonder in the Restoration of His Church. If members or leaders fall away or are caught in snares or sin, does this ruin God's work? Did David's fall ruin God's kingdom? Judas'? Imagine the ammo the Pharisees had with the story of Judas; or Peter's three denials. How about those ancient Jews who said they were commanded to destroy the Canaanites? None of it matters one bit. -a-train

Texans have had a strong succession movement among them for decades. -a-train

Keep in mind that Adam would have NEVER died had he not partaken of the fruit. So the fear of death within a thousand years would be great to an immortal being. However, obviously not great enough to keep our first parents from partaking. This is no different from those who partake of deadly drugs nowadays. Also, understand that the earth's reckoning of time could have been very different before the fall. We simply do not know how long a day was for Adam relative to our current reckoning. Furthermore, Adam was no dummy. He knew a lot. I am certain he understood a great deal about what he was getting himself into and what the LORD meant in his conversations with Adam. -a-train

I am not sure what quote we are talking about here. Is it this one?: 'There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, other parts of the American West and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.' Clearly, this one cannot somehow be interpreted that Hinkley stated that the Church has never had anything whatsoever to do with polygamy. Is there another quote? -a-train

OK, OK. Sheesh. Answer this question: What color were the descendants of Ham? -a-train

Can we blame Brigham, or any of the Saints for that matter, for going around preparing the people for an invasion of the U.S. Army? It DID happen, didn't it? He WAS right, wasn't he? We cannot assume Brigham's warning the people was a fear tactic. His concerns, and those of the people, were genuine and their cause for alarm did indeed materialize. I think the lesson learned in this Chapter of LDS History (as well as others) is that we need to establish a buffer between Church leadership and government. In this case, a very political, and territorial mess came to be linked to Church Leadership which would not have been so entagled if Brigham Young was not Governor. Now it is quite possible that the Church could not have so thrived without it's strong position in the formation and government of early Utah, but once well established it now has little need of such governmental involvement. What I can gather based on what I've read is that the crew that did the killings only decided to do so after making major mistakes in handling the Fancher party, and did so to cover their mistakes, but their killings only served to magnify their disloyalty to God, the Church, and the people and brought about further public abuse. What bothers me is the defensive nature that modern LDS have in them on the issue. It is akin to the guilt in white folks for the enslavery of blacks. While I acknowledge the sin of those people and the dreadful nature of their crime, I feel not one shred of guilt, nor am I defensive. I had no part in those murders, and even IF I was a decendant of those killers, I would have no guilt whatsoever. If those people were some no good murderin' thugs, so be it. I have no objection. With the same token, the living relatives of those so brutality murdered who today take offense against the modern LDS people are just as those who hold in hostility the whites of this country who had no affiliation to slavery. My father was murdered. I have no ill-feelings toward the children or associates of his killer, the notion is absurd. -a-train

Nope. Black. Straight up Black. -a-train

Well, they get that all the time, I'm just not sure who wants to see a 'Mormon' movie besides the Mormons, but this one THEY won't even watch. Most of my non-LDS friends have expressed no desire at all to see it. A tear-jerking tragic love story in Pioneer Utah interrupted by murder? It's not even a chick-flick. -a-train

We are becoming our dads. -a-train

That was my joke. Locate some evidence that the Jaredites were white, and I'll sight-in (envision, magnify) the evidence that they were black. Perhaps I am just getting in over my head here. -a-train

I bet the September Dawn movie is a flop. Straight to DVD. -a-train

If you are thinking about abandoning him, are you his friend now? -a-train

I have no feelings, that is actually a bigger problem than having them I think. -a-train

The 'Real' problem with sin is not simply that it has arbitrarily been designated as such by God. The Eternal Celestial law which God abides and is preparing us to abide is co-eternal with Him. Like unto gravity, it is 'unbreakable'. We say: 'There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.' (D&C 130:20-21) Indeed, the Eternal Law is no different. God cannot break the law without also enduring the consequences of having done so. This is why no 'transgression' of the law can He abide. We, like Him, will endure the consequences of failure to abide the Celestial Law, which consequence is non-Celestial glory. -a-train

Site some evidence that the Jaredites were white, and I'll sight the evidence that they were black. -a-train