Animal Sacrifice-Would you participate?


TruthSeekerToo
 Share

Recommended Posts

to the OP: me I probably would be able to do an animal sacrifice if required... Altho if it were my pet I doubt it.

But then Abraham was commanded to sacrfice his own son, altho he was saved from having to complete it... And greater still: God- he did not prevent the sacrifice of his Son.

Are we greater than he?

That being said (and having only read most of the first page) I would like to point something out;

How do we know that said offering and sacrifice must be an animal?

When christ fulfilled the law, the principle of sacrifice was not done away with- what was required for the sacrifice was, instead of using lambs and etc.. we must do the more difficult sacrifice; a broken heart and a contrite spirit... To give up our pride, our sins, our wants, our desires for God.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to the OP: me I probably would be able to do an animal sacrifice if required... Altho if it were my pet I doubt it.

But then Abraham was commanded to sacrfice his own son, altho he was saved from having to complete it... And greater still: God- he did not prevent the sacrifice of his Son.

Are we greater than he?

Your comment reminded me of the "Old Testament" Visual Resource DVD's that are out now. In it there is a video representation of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his own son. It was so well done that I could almost feel the pain he would have experienced all the while thinking about my sons and how I would cope - I cried :tears: and was overwhelmed to think he had so much faith. Would I? Could I? I pray I can do what the Lord would ask :pray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JS is not mistaken. The temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt, and the sons of Levi will be authorized to once again offer sacrifices unto the Lord. these are the words John the Baptist used when he conferred the priesthood of Aaron on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

“Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.” (D&C 13.)

I don't think many of us will participate at all, unless we are Levites.

Regards,

Vanhin

I had always understood the part about "the Levites offering a sacrifice in righteousness" as a one-time thing. Apparently I was wrong. It also appears that the ancient law of sacrifice (pre-Moses) is not going to be re-instituted until the prophecy of the Levites again offering sacrifice in righteousness is fulfilled.

Thanks for sharing this bit, I learned something new today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everybody - let's kill some kittens for God. After that, let's kill our sons. If we aren't stopped, then it was meant to be.

After that maybe we can blow up some buildings and steal our enemies cattle.

Wait... you aren't supposed to steal the buildings?

Oops...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everybody - let's kill some kittens for God. After that, let's kill our sons. If we aren't stopped, then it was meant to be.

After that maybe we can blow up some buildings and steal our enemies cattle.

You're absolutely right snow. it says "thou shalt not murder" not "thou shalt not have them murdered."

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, sheesh.

If I had the choice of royally ticking off God or slaughtering an animal, I suppose I would kill the animal. I made a promise to the Lord when I was baptized that I would do everything I could to follow commandments. So if sacrifice was commanded I would certainly do it. I pray that I never have to, because I HATE killing animals. I rarely eat meat, and would probably be a vegetarian if I lived in an area that offered more vegetarian-friendly choices.

It's funny, I wouldn't so much worry if I were asked to live in polygamy. But if I were asked to do animal sacrifice? I'd do it, although very reluctantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be a bit squeemish at first but I suppose after doing it enough I could get used to it. I saw pigs slaughtered in the Philippines by being hit in the head with a pipe. That made me sick for a few hours. I felt wierd that whole day.

But the Sons of Levi will offer a last sacrifice in the Third Temple. It's interesting reading about the early chruch leades views of animal sacrifice. I read the Strangite's Book of the Law of the Lord and it too commands sacrifice of animals within their temples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, sheesh.

If I had the choice of royally ticking off God or slaughtering an animal, I suppose I would kill the animal. I made a promise to the Lord when I was baptized that I would do everything I could to follow commandments. So if sacrifice was commanded I would certainly do it. I pray that I never have to, because I HATE killing animals. I rarely eat meat, and would probably be a vegetarian if I lived in an area that offered more vegetarian-friendly choices.

It's funny, I wouldn't so much worry if I were asked to live in polygamy. But if I were asked to do animal sacrifice? I'd do it, although very reluctantly.

That's not the issue.

God is silent. He doesn't tell you or I what to do. What you have are some ancient anonymous writings that claim that God wanted them to kill in his name and some more modern writings that some people interpret as God wanting you to kill in his name.

The issue is not whether you would do what God told you to do, but rather would you commit barbarous acts of violence if someone else told you that's what God wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the issue.

God is silent. He doesn't tell you or I what to do. What you have are some ancient anonymous writings that claim that God wanted them to kill in his name and some more modern writings that some people interpret as God wanting you to kill in his name.

The issue is not whether you would do what God told you to do, but rather would you commit barbarous acts of violence if someone else told you that's what God wanted.

I am wondering if this conversation is turning around back to;:o

Do we believe that God speaks to His prophets

and they tell us what God said to them.:mellow:?

:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering if this conversation is turning around back to;:o

Do we believe that God speaks to His prophets

and they tell us what God said to them.:mellow:?

:cool:

Ummm, So what is God saying to his prophets that they then are telling us? Be good, study, pray, pay your tithing, serve one another?

When was the last time that God said something new and unknown?

What about this... what if God told Henry B. Eyring to get a koala bear or seal pup and take it to Temple Square so that President Monson could chop it's head off with a machete during General Conference? How do you think that would go over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm, So what is God saying to his prophets that they then are telling us? Be good, study, pray, pay your tithing, serve one another?

When was the last time that God said something new and unknown?

What about this... what if God told Henry B. Eyring to get a koala bear or seal pup and take it to Temple Square so that President Monson could chop it's head off with a machete during General Conference? How do you think that would go over?

The gospel is new and unknown to all who haven't heard it. Parts and sayings are new and unknown to those who haven't heard them.

Wellll, that probably wouldn't go over very well for the public. Thankfully I highly doubt that would happen anyway. IF God told Pres. Eyring to get an animal, it would probably not be a seal pup or koala bear. More likely it would be a cow or sheep. And, if by some chance that did happen, who cares how it goes over? I prefer to fear God to fearing man. Man can imprison, torture, kill, etc. God can condemn. I think I might prefer mans somewhat temporal ideals.

I admit that we don't hear much NEW stuff. But in reference to 'God's silence', this isn't true. In fact, to say he is silent in such an all encompassing way is to say that he is not omnibenevolent. I'd be careful saying that. Yes, with respect to this threads topic, he hasn't said anything lately that we are aware of. But, He guides us most especially in ways that we need to be guided in. Generally it is in ways that we have forgotten or become lacking in. At present, this doesn't include animal sacrifice.

But lets suppose that someone (prophet) did tell you to do this. Would you turn away immediately or ask the Lord for verification? If he gave verification, would you follow through?

About the kittens and then the sons. You seem to place us on par with the prophet. And that we would be tested in the same way. We are all tested in different ways. I doubt anyone here would be tested in such a way. I think most of us would fail that test. I probably would fail if I had a son to be tested with.

Just to cover my bases, I can feel a comment coming on that goes something like 'it didn't really happen how the Bible says it did.' The reason I feel this coming is because of the sarcasm towards the historical account. That view runs completely contrary to the expressed view of a different thread. As such, I will have to ask for a reliable (preferably prophetic, but if scholarly is the best you can do) source supporting the implied position that the old testament is unreliable with regard to the wars, reasons for the wars, sacrifice, and... well... that pretty much covers most of it or is related to most of it.

At this point I think it is important to point out to all that none of us will be directly commanded by God to perform any such sacrifice or activity. In this respect, Snows sarcasm is well founded. None of us will have to make such a decision directly. To do so would run contrary to the very organization of the church. God will only establish such a mandate through his prophet. It will probably only be up to a select few (tribe of Levi) to decide to follow the commandment. As with the old testament, I highly doubt that God would command the majority to perform the actual sacrifice. Most likely all most of us would have to do is deliver the sacrifice itself.

Edited by ozzy
clarificational punctuation and phrasing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gospel is new and unknown to all who haven't heard it. Parts and sayings are new and unknown to those who haven't heard them.

Wellll, that probably wouldn't go over very well for the public. Thankfully I highly doubt that would happen anyway. IF God told Pres. Eyring to get an animal, it would probably not be a seal pup or koala bear. More likely it would be a cow or sheep. And, if by some chance that did happen, who cares how it goes over? I prefer to fear God to fearing man. Man can imprison, torture, kill, etc. God can condemn. I think I might prefer mans somewhat temporal ideals.

Why? Does God love koala bears and hate sheep?

I admit that we don't hear much NEW stuff. But in reference to 'God's silence', this isn't true. In fact, to say he is silent in such an all encompassing way is to say that he is not omnibenevolent. I'd be careful saying that. Yes, with respect to this threads topic, he hasn't said anything lately that we are aware of. But, He guides us most especially in ways that we need to be guided in. Generally it is in ways that we have forgotten or become lacking in. At present, this doesn't include animal sacrifice.

How about this for guidance:

Pray

Go to Church

Be nice

Be honest

Pay your tithing

Be of service

Establish good credit but stay out of debt and live within your means.

Forgive others

Forgive yourself

Don't smoke

Go to school. Get a job

etc

etc

It doesn't take much revelation to know what you are supposed to do.

But lets suppose that someone (prophet) did tell you to do this. Would you turn away immediately or ask the Lord for verification? If he gave verification, would you follow through?

Killing puppies for God is not something I require verification of.

About the kittens and then the sons. You seem to place us on par with the prophet. And that we would be tested in the same way. We are all tested in different ways. I doubt anyone here would be tested in such a way. I think most of us would fail that test. I probably would fail if I had a son to be tested with.

I hardly place myself on part with a prophet. I reject that God tests people by trying to get them to commit evil.

Just to cover my bases, I can feel a comment coming on that goes something like 'it didn't really happen how the Bible says it did.' The reason I feel this coming is because of the sarcasm towards the historical account. That view runs completely contrary to the expressed view of a different thread. As such, I will have to ask for a reliable (preferably prophetic, but if scholarly is the best you can do) source supporting the implied position that the old testament is unreliable with regard to the wars, reasons for the wars, sacrifice, and... well... that pretty much covers most of it or is related to most of it.

google: Bible Tales are Wilting

At this point I think it is important to point out to all that none of us will be directly commanded by God to perform any such sacrifice or activity. In this respect, Snows sarcasm is well founded. None of us will have to make such a decision directly. To do so would run contrary to the very organization of the church. God will only establish such a mandate through his prophet. It will probably only be up to a select few (tribe of Levi) to decide to follow the commandment. As with the old testament, I highly doubt that God would command the majority to perform the actual sacrifice. Most likely all most of us would have to do is deliver the sacrifice itself.

Think about it. If Elder Eyring held down a shetland pony while President Monson stabbed it to death on Temple Square, they both probably be arrested (and convicted), members would leave the Church, we'd be scorned by rational people and the laughing stock of the rational and irrational alike.

Why?

Because the entire concept is absurd. Take it out of the distant past or the distant future and place it in the here and now and it's inconceivable in a normal, enlightened society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Does God love koala bears and hate sheep?

How about this for guidance:

Pray

Go to Church

Be nice

Be honest

Pay your tithing

Be of service

Establish good credit but stay out of debt and live within your means.

Forgive others

Forgive yourself

Don't smoke

Go to school. Get a job

etc

etc

It doesn't take much revelation to know what you are supposed to do.

Killing puppies for God is not something I require verification of.

I hardly place myself on part with a prophet. I reject that God tests people by trying to get them to commit evil.

google: Bible Tales are Wilting

Think about it. If Elder Eyring held down a shetland pony while President Monson stabbed it to death on Temple Square, they both probably be arrested (and convicted), members would leave the Church, we'd be scorned by rational people and the laughing stock of the rational and irrational alike.

Why?

Because the entire concept is absurd. Take it out of the distant past or the distant future and place it in the here and now and it's inconceivable in a normal, enlightened society.

I wouldn't say he hates sheep and loves koala bears. I would say that he has a tendancy towards asking for those sorts of sacrifices. Maybe thats cause the isrealites didn't have koala bears. I dunno. But that doesn't change that it is historically abnormal.

That is wonderful guidance. I agree with every part of it. However convictions of those things do not come rationally. According to rational, it is better to not forgive others but to sue them for every penny you can and thus grow economically. The concept of forgiveness is obviously lacking in the world. No wonder God doesn't feel we are ready for new stuff.

Nor is it something I require verification of. I'm not a Levite. Even if I were, I don't think I would need verification to kill a cow either. I eat them on an almost daily basis.

Our ideas of evil are somewhat obviously influenced by society. I don't recall God ever saying that society was always right.

I googled it as you suggested. Micheal has some well written stuff. Which he should since that is his degree. I have a few issues though. First, doesn't it make sense that Egypts account is obscure and fuzzy? They lost. If you look at Englands coverage of the American Revolution, it is obscure and fuzzy too. They cover in maybe 2 days of school what it takes Americans months to cover.

My second issue is that it refers solely to rabbis. Of course they think it didn't happen literally. If they did, they would have to acknowledge that Jews were responsible for the death of the savior.

My third issue is the inflated view that archeologists have found this that or the other. However there is no proof or reference to specifics aside from the Egypt reference which I have covered.

My fourth issue is that Nephi directly references the account in the Book of Mormon. Is that false too? He does say that God lead his forefathers out of Egypt. Sounds to me like they couldn't have done it themselves. In other words, they were escaping bondage.

Lastly, the prophets have had nothing to say on the issue. As they communicate with God directly, I expect that they would know quite a bit more than a journalist, and archeologists.

You assume that the society of today is enlightened. I find this an interesting concept, and more absurd than the idea of sacrifice. If 10 trillion dollars of national debt, courts favoring criminals, governmentally debated religious practices, the idea that monetary wealth is more important than ethics or morals, and finally the very idea that God doesn't exist are all the aspects of an enlightened society, I want no part of it. And we can apply similar principles to almost any society presently in existence.

The more we set aside (as a society, or individuals) the very principles of salvation (including your list), the less enlightened we will become. Our society is as enlightened now with respect to religious things as Europe was a few hundred years ago with respect to physical things. They believed that the earth was flat and the center of the universe as an example. With respect to things of the spirit, science can't possibly determine truth because it doesn't rely on the spirit, and doesn't have the instruments necessary for such an exercise. With respect to history, science has a highly biased view towards whatever end they wish people to believe. I know you would argue that the Bible is the same, and perhaps it is. But the Bible is older and actually supports the principles that would enlighten a society whereas modern ideals do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here is a source that moves to say that archeology supports the Bible. I believe it is peer reviewed thus making it as scholarly as need be. Let me know what you think.

The Bible and Archaeology

I can't see any indication of peer review or if so, who his peers are. He teaches at a 7th Day Adventist seminary and presented a paper at a meeting in the Dominican Republic.

Regardless, having read his paper I am reminded just how little evidence their is for Biblical stories. For example, he cites the discovery of the name Sargon that some believe refers to the Sargon named in the OT, the first time someone from the Bible was mentioned outside the Bible. Some other examples are cited - not too exciting.

I do question his scholarship. He says that archeology has shown or may show that Jericho was inhabited at the time of the supposed conquest is one constructs a chronology from a particular datum point in the OT. If one assumes that is true - a big if - that is hardly significant. It's like claiming there really was a town named Palmyra at the time that Joseph Smith claims to have lived there. HOWEVER, in so claiming he references the work of Bryant Woods. Yes, Bryant Woods claims that Jericho was occupied at the time he claims to placed pottery shards there but what the author of your paper neglects to mention is that the scholarly consensus places the date of the conquest 150 years earlier that Woods, making his find of pottery shards (indicating habitation) irrelevant.

In an issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Piotr Bienkowski attacked Wood's arguments and then summarized his assessment of Wood's claims as follows:

Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected.

At the scholarly consensus time of the conquest, Jericho was not a walled town, despite Woods hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the peer reviewed idea came from the following ideas:

I was under the impression it was written either for or by Randall Younker at Andrews University. This was supported by the address being given for Maryland, not the DR.

The other noteworthy aspect is that the author cites 2 dozen plus references, even if he does use a questionable one, I am called to wonder if they are all questionable.

I recently took a writing class here at BYU-I and this article would have been granted peer-reviewed status in appearance, content, and it is likely to be found using a search engine that only locates peer reviewed articles.

Mostly out of curiosity, I would like to know what your thoughts are concerning my other post (#42).

I am also curious to know this. Based on the idea that the subject of the thread is whether or not you would do animal sacrifice if God commanded it, please consider this question from the aspect of faith rather than scholarly finding. IF God commanded YOU to do animal sacrifice in a way that is at least similar to the way that the Bible records, would you do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may have been Brigham Young who was confused. There is some indication that he believed that the LDS temple would be a place for animal sacrifice.

"The introduction of such sacrifice was suggested by Brigham Young in preliminary remarks on the design for the Salt Lake Temple. However, Brigham Young died before any serious plans for the interior layout of the temple were developed. No such facility was built into the temple. Smith's remarks have some special weight since this sermon was contemplated and written before-hand."

In reading D&C 84, it seems that WE are the sons of Moses and Aaron. And the acceptable sacrifice is to happen in the temple at New Jerusalem.

Moses and Aaron were both Levites.:eek:

I don't think that we can generalize about all of us.

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share