duffman180 Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 You do realize work you are calling crappy anti-Mormon literature... is the very source you claim for an example the Blood Atonement written by Lee??? And you still seem to have problem with providing proof of your claims of murder. This one is easy if FARMs acknowledge Blood Atonement Murders by church leaders it should be really, really easy for you to cite them. If you have such a source you really should have started with them rather then what you acknowledge as crappy anti Mormon literature.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 39This 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) And Quinn's homosexuality and hints that Joseph Smith was gay, had no role in his excommunication? You sure?Incidentally, the historical record does support that castration was occasionally used in territorial Utah as a punishment--for bestiality. In fact, I think I read that in one of Quinn's books. And of course, broader American culture had no problem sterilizing offenders of all sorts well into the twentieth century. Edited March 11, 2015 by Just_A_Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StallionMcBeastly Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 Nice dodge of the questions Stallion... You demand other to answer your questions but you ignore the ones asked of you. Do you consider it polite to accuse people of murder or not? As for your questions alot about that time frame "troubles" me... but I am not going around accusing people of murder, racism, and sex sins because I am "troubled" about it.I'm not trying to dodge, I apologize if it came off that way. No one was accusing BY of murder, just that he advocated for blood atonement, which he did. I don't quite understand your second paragraph.I have a hard time discussing things in church history that bother me. I feel like I can't discuss it with anyone because I instantly get called anti or apostate. It happens here on the board and in real life. It would be nice to share my opinion without the feeling of being attacked. I'm happy to hear other people's views. I don't want to destroy the church. I love the Gospel and the church. I can't accept the mainstream way of believing the Gospel, but I still think there's a place for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 I'm not trying to dodge, I apologize if it came off that way. No one was accusing BY of murder, just that he advocated for blood atonement, which he did.I don't quite understand your second paragraph.I have a hard time discussing things in church history that bother me. I feel like I can't discuss it with anyone because I instantly get called anti or apostate. It happens here on the board and in real life. It would be nice to share my opinion without the feeling of being attacked. I'm happy to hear other people's views. I don't want to destroy the church. I love the Gospel and the church. I can't accept the mainstream way of believing the Gospel, but I still think there's a place for me. My second paragraph was in answer to your question about if things "trouble" me... The answer is yes they do. You know what I do with my troubles and concerns?... I do what the scripture and prophets have taught me. I study it... I ponder it... I pray about it and I read the scriptures looking for answers and inspiration. And I have faith that the problem lies with my knowledge and understanding... Not in Christ nor the Father's plan for us. I feel the whole point is for me to wrestle with it and seek the Lord in so doing... Not to seek like minded individuals whom are in no better position then I am to resolve the concerns Unlike others I do not think it wise to vent those concerns to strangers on the internet because I have no idea if one of them might what Christ called his "little ones" and I might drag them down. And never say that you called Brigham Young a murderer... I said that Duffman was making a bold claim that (as of yet unnamed) Church Leaders were murders. That they held the knives and slit the throats. I was hoping that I was mistaken in my understanding of Duffman's position. I was hoping when I called him out he would say I was horribly misunderstanding him... and why would he "prove" a point he was not trying to make. Instead Duffman cites as evidence that the Account of Bro Lee whom the church found necessary to excommunicate for actions that he took. In spite of the excommunication Duffman finds Bro Lee's account of the murder of the adulterer so compelling that he ignores the fact that there is no other support for the action happening. This is clearly contrary to the teaching of the scriptures clearly requiring Two or Three witness to establish anything. Instead the church leaders he claims to support and sustain, get thrown under the bus, and those that the church has excommunicated he raises to the level of sayers of truths Leah 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 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 39This 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. So I just did some google searching regarding blood atonement. I found that some of the things you quoted (copied and pasted) were taken not only from the Tanners (we all know Sandra Tanner is an apostate) and from another author who wrote The Mormon Delusion. Not very credible sources. In fact far from it. mirkwood, Leah and classylady 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 This thread is now closed. We've been tag teamed with sock puppets. classylady, Just_A_Guy and mirkwood 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts