Brigham Young..a Murderer? Huh?

[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

[Guest Yediyd]

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

a- train..will you marry me?

jk

[Jason]

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.

[vinny15]

Well I meant organized religion that poeple have heard of. lol.

So samson in the bible who slew a thousand men, was he crazy? Was Abraham crazy for attempting to sacrifice his son?

God has asked quite a few things of us. Some are odd and some have been skewed ofcaorse.

I admit he wasnt perfect, but he has done some good things.

The discourses were never considered doctrine. We do not consider general conference doctrine.

And no the counselors are not sustained as prophet's seers and revelators, only counselors, but i believe grant was a twelve.

Oh and My third nipple can't be shown because I didnt outline the standards enough. lol

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

Bravo! Marry me aswell. jk lol. I guees it was capital punishment. I hadnt happened to look at it like that. Why else would they practice it in the BoM and the Bible. There had to of been a spiritual reason. lol I guees that's it.

Thanks,

G-dizzle, fo, shizzle,

What! lol nvmd.

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.

I wonder if my third nipple mattered than? hmm

[Saab900man]

Well I meant organized religion that poeple have heard of. lol.

So samson in the bible who slew a thousand men, was he crazy? Was Abraham crazy for attempting to sacrifice his son?

God has asked quite a few things of us. Some are odd and some have been skewed ofcaorse.

I admit he wasnt perfect, but he has done some good things.

The discourses were never considered doctrine. We do not consider general conference doctrine.

And no the counselors are not sustained as prophet's seers and revelators, only counselors, but i believe grant was a twelve.

Oh and My third nipple can't be shown because I didnt outline the standards enough. lol

<div class='quotemain'>

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

Bravo! Marry me aswell. jk lol. I guees it was capital punishment. I hadnt happened to look at it like that. Why else would they practice it in the BoM and the Bible. There had to of been a spiritual reason. lol I guees that's it.

Thanks,

G-dizzle, fo, shizzle,

What! lol nvmd.

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.

I wonder if my third nipple mattered than? hmm

OK, I guess I should read the whole thread and not skip some in the middle........but now I am just scared......the quote about the third nipple.......to much

[a-train]

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

[vinny15]

<div class='quotemain'>

Well I meant organized religion that poeple have heard of. lol.

So samson in the bible who slew a thousand men, was he crazy? Was Abraham crazy for attempting to sacrifice his son?

God has asked quite a few things of us. Some are odd and some have been skewed ofcaorse.

I admit he wasnt perfect, but he has done some good things.

The discourses were never considered doctrine. We do not consider general conference doctrine.

And no the counselors are not sustained as prophet's seers and revelators, only counselors, but i believe grant was a twelve.

Oh and My third nipple can't be shown because I didnt outline the standards enough. lol

<div class='quotemain'>

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

Bravo! Marry me aswell. jk lol. I guees it was capital punishment. I hadnt happened to look at it like that. Why else would they practice it in the BoM and the Bible. There had to of been a spiritual reason. lol I guees that's it.

Thanks,

G-dizzle, fo, shizzle,

What! lol nvmd.

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.

I wonder if my third nipple mattered than? hmm

OK, I guess I should read the whole thread and not skip some in the middle........but now I am just scared......the quote about the third nipple.......to much

lol dont worry it happens to me all the time. To bad these threads get so long lol.

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

Very nice. I agree completely. You brought up some good points. Keep it up lol.

[Jason]

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".

I could give you a logical reason for all the transgressions in this world, for all that are committed in this probationary state, and especially for those committed by men.

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.

....

I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine, but you do not understand it.

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_04/refJDvol4-10.html

[Jason]

Well I meant organized religion that poeple have heard of. lol.

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?

So samson in the bible who slew a thousand men, was he crazy?

No, that's just a borrowed myth from paganism.

Was Abraham crazy for attempting to sacrifice his son?

If it actually happened, then yes.

God has asked quite a few things of us. Some are odd and some have been skewed ofcaorse.

A mere fraction of the Old Testament is inspired of God. The rest is garbage.

The discourses were never considered doctrine. We do not consider general conference doctrine.

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.

And no the counselors are not sustained as prophet's seers and revelators, only counselors, but i believe grant was a twelve.

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.

[Jason]

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.

[a-train]

Jason,

Did you miss the opening statement of this discourse?:

'Before I sit down, I shall offer a proposition to the congregation; though I will first say a few words concerning our religion, our circumstances, and the circumstances of the brethren and people generally that inhabit these valleys, but more especially of those that have the privilege of assembling at this Tabernacle from Sabbath to Sabbath.'

Perhaps you overlooked the sentence just preceding your citation also:

'I want all the people to say what they will do, and I know that God wishes all His servants, all His faithful sons and daughters, the men and the women that inhabit this city, to repent of their wickedness, or we will cut them off.'

'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:

'The man, or the woman, that mainly looks after the fruit, after the luxuries of life, good food, fine apparel, and at the same time professes to be a Latter-day Saint, if he does not get that spirit out of his heart, it will obtain a perfect victory over him; whereas he is required to obtain a victory over his lusts and over his unwise feelings; and if he does not get rid of that spirit, the quicker he starts east for the States, or west for California, the better.'

Also:

'I would advise those persons to repent of their sins forthwith, and to try with all their might to get the spirit of their religion upon them, and if they cannot do that, to take their own course and go where their hearts desire, for doubtless there is some place where you would wish to go.'

Perhaps you also bypassed the two small paragraphs replaced by [....] in your quote:

'Of all the children of Israel that started to pass through the wilderness, none inherited the land which had been promised, except Caleb and Joshua, and what was the reason? It was because of their rebellion and wickedness; and because the Lord had promised Abraham that he would save his seed.

They had to travel to and fro to every point of the compass, and were wasted away, because God was determined to save their spirits. But they could not enter into His rest in the flesh, because of their transgressions, consequently He destroyed them in the wilderness.'

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.

[Jason]

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.

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?

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.

As I said, thank God the LDS Church is more sensible today.

P.S. We are still planning on taking over the earth.

Yeah, I know.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Ok, ok, ok, Emma! :-) I dug it out of my hope chest. The year was 1868 and here are his words:

"So when March came, I went up to Salt Lake City to be at the April conference and, also, to receive my second anointing and endowment. I understood this second endowment would give me more power and I could fight the Devil with more force and power.

So the time came, and I entered the endowment room for my second anointing. Brigham authorized Erastus Snow to officiate in this ordinance of second anointing, and told him to call upon those to assist who were getting their anointings and endowments. This day's labor was a day long to be remembered by me, and the thought I was worthy to be officiate in so great an endowment as the second considered, I thought was double the honor conferred upon me."

Now skipping...

This summer I concluded to take Erastus Snow's advice and make an effort to add my family another wife. I was acquainted with a girl in Mountain Meadows and I thought if my wife could possible live in peace with any woman on earth, and divide time with her, she could live with this one. But I wanted her satisfied by all means.... (snip) I could see at onece it would be a great trial for my wife, and to tell you the truth, it was also a trial for me; but we determined for exaltation; but my heart failed with I got ready for the trip.

(snip) I went over to the Meadows and we mutually agreed to dissolve the contract between us. (snip)

Erastus Snow heard of my decision not to remain with the kingdom and to seek out Jospehites. At this, he was not amused and gave me a rebuke I shall not forget. I was given three hours to leave and to not return to the kingdom. When coming back to my homestead I had saw that it had been torched, and there was little to gather from it.

============================================

That is all my poor fingers can type write now... Hope you enhoyed it.

Hi Blessed,

I loved it!

I don't know where you are, but you ought to contact The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers. The will have your GGGF's journal transcribed and return it to you.

Additionally, I know of a researcher who may be interested in the story of your GGGF's "boost" out of town.

The Mormon History Association would probably like to have it as well.

This is a fascinating, and important piece of history and I'm so glad you have it!

Thanks so much for sharing it!

Emma

P.S. Did he join the Josephite?

. . . (many of the children were not killed, but adopted by the LDS in the area).

Actually, the children were all returned to relatives.

One sad story is of a little girl who days after the massacre saw a woman wearing one of her dead mother's dresses. The woman was probably one of Jacob Hamlin's wives.

The children who were old enough to remember say they were treated well by the Mormons during the time they were with them, even though they were terribly traumatized.

Emma

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

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".

I could give you a logical reason for all the transgressions in this world, for all that are committed in this probationary state, and especially for those committed by men.

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.

....

I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine, but you do not understand it.

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_04/refJDvol4-10.html

I haven't really known where to jump in with this discussion of "blood atonement," so I thought this was a good place.

Way back on when I first entered the discussion I wrote:

"He often gave sermons full of blood atonement and vengeance for the murder of their beloved prophet Joseph.

Jason is correct. Blood atonement was very much a part of the massacre. That is why they left so many of the children alive. They did not want to shed innocent blood.

I know the church insists blood atonment was never doctrine, and it is true it was rarely practiced. But there are a few instances where it was, and the MMM is one of them.

And if you sat in the pews during Sunday meetings, chances are you heard sermons on it, like the one Jason just provided.

I'm not saying it was prevalent, but it was taught, and the MMM would not have happened if these men had not been taught the doctrine of blood atonement.

Emma

[a-train]

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?

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

[MaidservantX]

Although a-train already spoke as he did and I feel I could just line up behind him, let me say that before I read a-train, I must admit, Jason, that I found it odd that you 'translated' the term and concept of "transgressors" as quoted from JofD into "anyone not following Mormon doctrine" (and later "dissidents" or something). I don't see how that follows. Transgressors are transgressors, no matter what other traditions they are or are not following -- transgressing doesn't particularly mean sleeping in and missing church or perhaps lighting up cigarettes. I think the speaker was deeply concerned with much deeper evils that mankind (particular those who have covenanted, but yes all) practice and hide.

Also, I would like to hear other people's ideas on this -- perhaps another topic heading needed? But I have always considered what I hear at General Conference to be doctrine at least for the next six months. I try to order my life around what I have heard. Maybe this is a difference of semantics. But I thought that the words out of living prophets mouth were more doctrine that anything else including ancient scriptures.

I have known for some time that Christ's atonement cannot cover everything per say in the sense that there are things that one can lose that cannot be returned, at least not to their original condition. This reality of the universe has been a factor in my depthless sorrows. I do believe that long term effects of acts can almost always be redeemed, a lot more often than a return to original condition per say. Although . . . maybe I just don't know enough. Once in a while I get a glimpse of redemption's power and that I have no idea what wonders, comforts, gifts, peace and restorations are in store. . . .

[CrimsonKairos]

Anything spoken by the Spirit and will of God is scripture, regardless of who speaks it.

There is no guarantee that everything spoken during conference will be so inspired and hence, scripture.

To believe so makes where something is said--and not what is said--the standard for discerning truth.

I haven't suffered from following the counsel of our modern-day prophets, seers and revelators, but I wouldn't necessarily consider everything they teach to be scripture.

[vinny15]

Jason your a fun little feller.

I had no idea you dont even like the bible.

All I can tell you my friend is that I know the lds church is true. I already know it so you can't tell me otherwise.

<div class='quotemain'>

Well I meant organized religion that poeple have heard of. lol.

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?

So samson in the bible who slew a thousand men, was he crazy?

No, that's just a borrowed myth from paganism.

Was Abraham crazy for attempting to sacrifice his son?

If it actually happened, then yes.

God has asked quite a few things of us. Some are odd and some have been skewed ofcaorse.

A mere fraction of the Old Testament is inspired of God. The rest is garbage.

The discourses were never considered doctrine. We do not consider general conference doctrine.

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.

And no the counselors are not sustained as prophet's seers and revelators, only counselors, but i believe grant was a twelve.

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.

Ya I do believe that he would send out boys on bikes my friend. I do believe they would use commercials in a good way.

And it is different from the standard works. I can't understand why you cant understand that.

ugh Ugh Ugh. You make a few good arguments and the rest are your own opinions that you think are common knowledge.

[Blessed]

Yes, Emma, he was baptized and became an elder. He became a missionary for the Texas area and worked very closely with Joseph Smith III in helping to buy the land that is now our Graceland College in Iowa.

His journal has been transcribed. I just have a copy of it. The original is held in the Temple in Independence, MO. in the library. I have gotten to see it once. It was really cool.

BTW, I am a "Jospehite" too. :-)

[Guest Yediyd]

Yes, Emma, he was baptized and became an elder. He became a missionary for the Texas area and worked very closely with Joseph Smith III in helping to buy the land that is now our Graceland College in Iowa.

His journal has been transcribed. I just have a copy of it. The original is held in the Temple in Independence, MO. in the library. I have gotten to see it once. It was really cool.

BTW, I am a "Jospehite" too. :-)

Ok, now I'm REALLY displaying my ignorance...but, what's a "Josephite"?

[Jason]

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.'

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[vinny15]

So you don't believe it is false?

[Jason]

So you don't believe it is false?

Kind of a silly question don't you think?

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Yes, Emma, he was baptized and became an elder. He became a missionary for the Texas area and worked very closely with Joseph Smith III in helping to buy the land that is now our Graceland College in Iowa.

Fascinating! I love this stuff. Do you know if he knew Emma at all?

He sounds like he had an amazing life. I am completley in awe of the early pioneers, regardless of where they ended up!

His journal has been transcribed. I just have a copy of it. The original is held in the Temple in Independence, MO. in the library. I have gotten to see it once. It was really cool.

Whew! I'm so glad.

BTW, I am a "Jospehite" too. :-)

Church of Christ? Is that correct? I've heard there's been break-offs, or disagreements, or something. I don't know any members. Has your family been members all of these generations?

Ok, now I'm REALLY displaying my ignorance...but, what's a "Josephite"?

Yedihd, It's not ignorance. It's just old history; most members don't know about it unless their into the Church's history. So don't feel ignorant.

The Josephites were members who followed Joseph Smith's son, Joseph Smith III. Emma stayed in Nauvoo and raised her children there. This is the quick version, but many believed Joseph III was the rightful heir to the Church's presidency. In addition, these people did not believe polygamy was a commandment of God. So when Joseph III was old enough, it took some convincing, but they finally got him to agree to become president of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Today this version of the church is called the Church of Christ. (Blessed, is that right?)

At the time they were called the Josephites; the Salt Lake City Mormons were called the Brighamites. Overall there were about 100 scfhisms of Mormonism. There are sitll quite a few today.

Blessed, please correct my story where I've got it wrong. I don't know it as well as I'm sure you do.

Thanks,

Emma

[vinny15]

<div class='quotemain'>

So you don't believe it is false?

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.