duffman180

No, the qoute is taken from John D. Lees diary. Even so, you say it sounds outlandish and you don't believe it yet you provide no reason why it isn't credible. Here's another source:To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his step‑daughter by a bishop's court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the means of this doctrine and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] reformation. Gustive O. Larson, Dr. Gustive O. Larson, BYU Professor, Utah Historical Quarterly, Jan. 1958, p. 62, note 39 This is a charitable view I found on the BYU archives. You can also read Under the Banner of Heaven if you want to look into it more. Another on violence stemming from blood atonement doctrine: "In the midsummer of 1857 Brigham Young also expressed approval for an LDS bishop who had castrated a man. In May 1857 Bishop Warren S. Snow's counselor wrote that twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis 'has now gone crazy' after being castrated by Bishop Snow for an undisclosed sex crime. When informed of Snow's action, Young said: 'I feel to sustain him...' In July Brigham Young wrote a reassuring letter to the bishop about this castration: 'Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it,' the LDS president advised, 'and it will soon die away among the people.' "(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pages 250-251) Quinn is very reputable and a believer. He was exed for bringing up facts the church wasn't ready to fully embrace yet.

Thank you, I clearly feel the same way. I'm no heretic or apostate for having nuanced views of past prophets. It's impossible for me to morally justify some of the things they did if I have to believe it all came from God. I don't believe God inspired these troubling things. It's okay if others don't see it like me, but that's my take.

I'm aware that there's crappy anti-Mormon literature out there, but even FARMs acknowledges that there were people killed through justification of the blood atonement. It's no secret, idk why you refuse to acknowledge it. Again, no evidence that BY killed anyone, but he did teach that doctrine. That's all I'm saying.

Thanks Stallion. It's nice to see someone can sympathize with my point of view. I never said Brigham Young killed anyone, there is zero evidence for that. I'm saying he advocated and taught a doctrine that encouraged the murder of people who commit various sins, and as a result (no surprise) people were killed.

I haven't said anything untrue. BY did teach the blood atonement, people were killed (though not by BY), but the doctrine itself is horrid enough. The Adam/God doctrine was taught, and incorporated into the endowment ceremony. We no removed it, because it's false doctrine even though taught by prophets. In my opinion, the church certainly was racist and prophets,seers and revelators taught awful things about Africans. In my opinion, polygamy was abused and there was sexual misconduct by Joseph Smith and other subsequent Prophets and apostles. You can interpret it how you will, and I interpret it how I choose. Even with these facts as unsavory as they are, I still remain a believer. I have a more nuanced view of the messiness of the restoration, but nevertheless I believe it. I take the Givens approach. I feel truth when I read the book of mormon. I feel inspired by the words of Joseph Smith. I love Christ and strive to follow Him. I am sorry that I have offended people, but it wasn't my intent. Perhaps I shouldn't have brought up the messy parts of our past, but I was doing so to try and defend my view point, not to incite hostility.

I don't believe following the prophet is a mark of our faith in Christ whatsoever. In my view, the prophets have repeatedly demonstrated that they can get it wrong, even when it comes to doctrine. That's why I cherish my own relationship with God and Christ above any man. Again, I don't see the WoW as a commandment, but a policy. Anyways, we're just going to go round and round. Let's agree to disagree.

I think it's time we just agree to disagree. I think we view the world (and history) to differently to carry the conversation on.

I think they are credible. John Lee is a relative of mine, and one of my cousins is and expert on his life and testimony. I know that means nothing, but I think John Lee is credible... and he was made to take the fall for the Massacre. Anyways, thats another discussion. Your ignoring the fact that BY and many other taught this violent rhetoric repeatedly. That's problematic to me, because it lead (unsurprisingly) to violence. I think we'll all just have to agree to disagree. I think this thread has gotten long enough.

Again, I don't understand why your being so antagonistic and condescending.

I've demonstrated several items that have been taught from the pulpit, by Presidents and Apostles of the church, that we now disavow. Even though the Priesthood essay refers to these things as "theories", it's not considered a theory by the church when it is taught by those sustained as "prophets, seers and revelators". I disagree, I think all my examples have met the criteria. You choose to see it differently, and thats okay. Sure the church can ban having slaves because it's illegal and we obey the law of the land. I'm not trying to undermine anyone, I'm sorry if that's how it's coming across. The entire reason I made my initial post was to say I think it's okay to have differing opinions than the official churches position. I now see that rubs a lot of you the wrong way, but it was never my intention to have this get so contentious. I realize I have unorthodox views, and am liberal compared to most of you. I have a different understanding of prophets. Thats okay, we should still be able to respect each others thoughts.

I'm not trying to Dodge anything, you've consistently been antagonist and condescending and I don't understand why.

Hmm I really don't think I have. Although BY didn't personally carry out a blood atonement, he and others taught the doctrine repeatedly... Although not the ones carrying out the act, in my view they certainly hold some of the responsibility for teaching the doctrine. When people carried it out, BY still sustained them. This can be found in Quinns book, extension of power.

I'm sorry I didn't supply sources, these things are easily looked up in the journal of discourses. Here is one qoute of many: "This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.... if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind." (Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857; printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 219-220) Here's one account of a man being killed: "Rasmos Anderson was a Danish man who came to Utah... He had married a widow lady somewhat older than himself... At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery... they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter. This Council was composed of Klingensmith and his two counselors; it was the Bishop's Council. Without giving Anderson any chance to defend himself or make a statement, the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections... His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried... she being directed to tell those who should inquire after her husband that he had gone to California. "Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey Council. Anderson got up... and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the "Almighty God." They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave. "As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash... She obeyed their orders.... Anderson was killed just before the Mountain Meadows massacre. The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act. It was justified by all the people, for they were bound by the same covenants, and the least word of objection to thus treating the man who had broken his covenant would have brought the same fate upon the person who was so foolish as to raise his voce against any act committed by order of the Church authorities."( Confessions of John D. Lee, Photo-reprint of 1877 edition, pages 282-283 Lest anyone is confused, I believe in the gospel. I believe in the restoration. I believe the BoM. I have unorthodox and nuances views about prophets, but it doesn't affect mu belief in God and Christ. I would appreciate it if we could all be less hostile and demeaning in our comments. I'm not trying to tear down anyone's testimony.

Which part is false?

I wasn't saying Brigham Young murdered anyone, but it's absolutely true that people had their throats cut if found committing certain sins. You can easily look it up. I find this practice horrid, yet it came from the prophet. I still believe in the gospel and the restoration, I'm just advocating a more open narrative and room for different lines of thought.