Why are some Apostate Mormons ‘re-instated’ into the Church after their death and promised the Celestial Kingdom if all are to be judged according to their works in this life?
There have been many, some murderers, but I would like to focus on one man: an Apostle called by Joseph Smith, who was later ex-communicated for apostasy. After this man died, he was ‘restored’ to all his former blessings and one descendant was told by a prophet they would be with his family in the afterlife if they (the living family members) stayed worthy and that is only available in the Highest Degree of Glory in the Celestial Kingdom. This man was Amasa Lyman.
Lyman was a special counselor to Joseph Smith and was ordained an apostle by Brigham Young. He was married to Christina Partridge, (Daughter of Edward Partridge, First Presiding Bishop of the Church) and had other plural wives. Lyman was ordained an Apostle to replace Orson Pratt, but when Pratt repented and was restored, Lyman was bumped out of the Quorum.
Lyman followed Brigham Young to Utah, but began to believe in spiritualism and to deny the Atonement of Christ. Excerpts of a sermon given in 1859 show he believed that:
[Jesus] “was a good man.” He acknowledged that Jesus “died for the world,” but added, “and what man that ever died for the truth that he died for, did not die for the world? … Have we found redemption through them? … We may talk of men being redeemed by the efficacy of [Christ’s] blood; but the truth is that that blood had no efficacy to wash away our sins. That must depend upon our own action.” – JOD:7:297-299
Stripped of his Apostleship in 1867, he was finally excommunicated in 1870 after joining the “New Movement,” which was organized to oppose the political and economic control of Brigham Young in Utah. New Movement leaders [The Godbeites], who embraced spiritualism, named Lyman President of their Church of Zion.
Caroline left Amasa after this and was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. As her daughter later recorded:
[she] “felt she must have the protection and the security of the Priesthood in her and her children’s lives. … Evidently in her dire circumstances she felt that the Prophet was the only secure anchor to be sealed to.” (source below)
After Lyman’s death and at Caroline’s funeral in 1908, Francis M. Lyman (President of the Quorum of the Twelve) told
“President [Joseph F.] Smith of my desire to do something for father. Told him of my dreams and my Sister Martha’s, how father had appeared to us and pied his cause. How President Snow told me that there was no doubt but that he could come out all right in the end.” (source below)
A short time later Francis M. told his son Richard (who later became another Apostle),
“This is one of the most important and happiest days of my life. In the temple today, President Joseph F. Smith placed his hands on my head, and by proxy restored my father to all his former blessings, authority and power.” (see, Loretta L. Hefner, “From Apostle to Apostate: The Personal Struggle of Amasa Mason Lyman,” in Mormon Mavericks, John Sillito and Susan Staker (eds.), Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002.) quoted from: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/Mormons/amasa_lyman.htm#lyman
“President Smith said during his talk that he was sure that Amasa Lyman had paid the penalty for his wrong doing & would have all his wives and children who were worthy in eternity. He also said that the celestial order of marriage, or polygamy could never have been carried out successfully had it not been for the Partridge sisters.” http://www.finarv.org/history/histcepl.htm
How can one pay the penalty for wrong doing after one has already died? Is President Smith saying that he had the power to judge Amasa Lyman?
Bruce R. McConkie states this about “Restoration of Former Blessings”:
“Temple and priesthood blessings, as well as all others pertaining to the Church, are lost upon excommunication. In the event of repentance and subsequent rebaptism, all or part of these former blessings — those pertaining to the priesthood, to endowments, and to sealings — may be restored by a member of the Council of the Twelve upon authorization of the President of the Church.” -Mormon Doctrine:634
But how does one ‘repent’ if one is dead? McConkie is strangely silent on this question. Spencer Kimball, after quoting D&C 132, says in The Miracle of Forgiveness that this life is all you get:
“’For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because you receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.
“‘But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.
“‘This is eternal lives-to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.
“‘Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law.’ -D&C 132:22-25. (Italics his, bold mine)
“How impressive the Lord makes the time element! Why should he so emphasize it over and over if there were no significance to it? Would these phrases in the world and out of the world mean that one could go haphazardly through the years of mortality ‘eating, drinking, and being merry,’ ignoring all the commandments and failing to keep his life clean and still receive the blessings?” -MOF: Chapter 1, page 12 (bold mine)
Kimball is clearly in line with the Book of Mormon on this point. Alma 32:34 says:
“For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.”
Joseph Smith said this regarding Apostates:
“All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When a man begins to be an enemy to this work, he hunts me, he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood. He gets the spirit of the devil—the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life—the same spirit that sins against the Holy Ghost. You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance; they make open war, like the devil, and awful is the consequence.” -Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:358 (bold mine)
Isn’t this just what Amasa Lyman did, who was an Apostle, a special witness to Jesus Christ? Why then, are these Restoration of Blessings performed? How can one Prophet say that an Apostate “had paid the penalty for his wrong doing & would have all his wives and children who were worthy in eternity,” while another says “You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance”? Do the Mormon Prophets have the power to ‘grant dispensations’ and set aside the sins committed in this life like the Catholic Pope, or forgive sins like the Catholic Priests? Are they using their influence to ‘favor’ certain individuals and return their blessings?
Spencer Kimball intimated that there is such power in the Church and supported his understanding with a lengthy quote from J. Reuben Clark. At that time he was first counselor in the LDS First Presidency, and he said in part:
“There is in the Church… the power to remit sins, but I do not believe it resides in the bishops. That is a power that must be exercised under the proper authority of the priesthood and by those who hold the keys that pertain to that function.” -MOF:Chapter 21, page 333 (ellipsis in the original)
But do they have the power to do this after one is dead? How are these claims of restoration of blessings and forgiveness of sins after death justified in the light of Hebrews 9:27, John 14:6, Isaiah 53:12, Hebrews 7:25, & 1st Timothy 2:5?
Janet. Is human sacrifice and murder black or white? Is fornication with other men’s wives black or white? Is murdering a young man because he loves a woman who is desired by a church elder black or white?
MORONI
CHAPTER 7
6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.
7 For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.
8 For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.
9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.
10 Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.
11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.
12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
Apply your book’s writing to your own prophets and elders and you will see that they are lacking. Or do you charge those who lived under their adulterous, murderous hands as liars?
“Is human sacrifice and murder black or white? Is fornication with other men’s wives black or white? Is murdering a young man because he loves a woman who is desired by a church elder black or white?”
Yes, black and white, oh by the way, you’re last claims is a very old, old, talking point without any hard evidence, I thought they quit using it since it was shown to be so over the top ridiculous,
Critics (often relying on D. Michael’s Quinn’s treatment) have over-simplified and sensationalized this event. Critics claim that Bishop Warren S. Snow forcibly castrated twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis, whose “crime” was wanting to marry a young woman that was desired by an older man as a plural wife. Critics also claim that Brigham Young wrote in a letter his approval after the fact in 1857.
The full story gives a somewhat different picture of these events. Warren Snow’s biographer explains the matter thusly:
These events occurred during the Mormon Reformation, when inflammatory rhetoric called for harsh punishment for sin and crime. For Brigham the time for the actual implementation of such punishment was not yet, and partly hyperbole designed to stir a sinful population to improvement. Some listeners like Snow got confused and took things literally.
The rumor that Lewis was being punished for competing against an older polygamist is likely false. Kathryn Daynes gives another example where Brigham Young advised a young woman to marry a single, young man against her parents wishes that she marry a older polygamist. [citation needed]
Even if there is an element of truth in point #2, Lewis was being transported to the penitentiary for a sexual crime. He was not an innocent who was attacked simply for desiring a marriage.
While being transported at night, Snow and his gang secretly intercepted Lewis and carried out the castration.
When Brigham Young heard about Lewis’ sex crime and the punishment, he reiterated his stance that the time for such measures was still in the future, and not to be implemented in the here-and-now.
Church History.
I am continually amazed at how much deception the Mormons will put forth as the truth. It is NOT RUMOR. In the above quote Janet claims to have the ‘full story’ but she forgot something. They published the diaries of Wilford Woodruff not too long ago, and we find the end of the story in there. Here is what he wrote concerning the above matter:
“I then went into the president office & spent the evening. Bishop Blackburn was present. The subject Came up of some persons leaving Provo who had Apostatized. Some thought that Bishop Blackburn & President Snow was to blame. Brother Joseph Young presented THE THING to president Young. But When the Circumstances were told Presidet Brigham Young SUSTAINED THE BRETHERN who presided at Provo…
“The subjects of EUNUCHS came up…Brigham Said the day would Come when thousands would be made Eunochs in order for them to be saved in the kingdom of God.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Diary, June 2, 1857, Vol. 5, pp. 54-55)
Brigham Young sustained the brethern in connection with the incident and then went on to say the day would come when THOUSANDS would suffer the same fate. Thank GOD the United States ended the Reign of Terror of this TYRANT. It was not some FUTURE thing it was the HERE-AND-NOW.
Take this quote by Heber C. Kimball:
“You have heard us talk about it a great deal, and probably many do not believe one word we say, but this people will never, no never, prosper to a high degree until we make a public example of — what? Men who have be warned and forewarned … WE WILL TAKE THEM AND SLAY THEM BEFORE THIS PEOPLE. ” Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p.173 (1857)
This was no future thing, these prophets and apostles were taking to THEIR PEOPLE in the HERE AND NOW. Mormons claim it is all rhetoric, but it was not. What else can those diaries and minutes reveal that the Church guards so closely? It would destroy their Church and they know it. D. Michael Quinn is right on!
grindael,
It’s all about the spirit of Mormonism. Our Mormon poster(s) will not detail for us who this god of theirs’ is who leads men to do and say these evil things. It’s either the spirit of Mormonism or the total depravity of man(kind)that provides the impetus for these Mormon apostles and prophets to proclaim such abominations. But to Mormons everything has an explanation with the tag line “therefore the church is true”. It’s all about the testimony, not overwhelming evidence that shows these apostles and prophets for what they are/were. It’s like I always say, Mormon explanations for these things is like a man who gets caught by his wife in bed with another woman. The guy says, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” The wife just keeps repeating, “My husband is faithful”, despite what she sees.
I have to keep reminding myself when I read the thorough and well written and documented posts that Christians write here, that Mormons can’t get it. And when I say “can’t” I mean “can’t”. This is not a problem of lack of cognition on the part of Mormons. It’s a particular brand of thinking that only those of you who have been on the inside can appreciate (if that’s the correct word).
MJP,
I have been to other Christian services (Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Pentacostal and Vapaa Kirkko – a Finnish movement along the Pentacostal lines). Out of the church services I can only remember 2 (Pentacostal and Vapaa) that mentioned the Holy Spirit, apart from either quoting a scripture or reciting the creeds. I was on my mission when I visited the Pentacostal and Vapaa Kirkko so I was with my companion and we were wearing our missionary badges. I believe it was in the Pentacostal they went around with the collection bag and the person who came to our area looked very surprised when he saw us. Most people during this time were standing while singing with their hands raised heads facing up and eyes closed. The person who did the collection and saw us went up to the side of the stage and called the minister over. They had a brief conversation, after which the minister went back to centre stage and said that the Spirit had whispered to him that there were 2 people in the paths of sin in the congregation and that they can be saved by going down the front and being prayed over and accepting Christ. I really felt like standing up and saying that that’e the first time I had seen the Spirit wearing a red jumper (pullover for all you Yanks). I refrained from doing it, but that’s the Spirit in that congregation.
Really?
Doctrine and Covenants, which I go by as our standard works.
We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal
with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the
rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such
dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not
believe that any religious society has authority to try men
on the right of property or life, to take from them this
world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or
limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They
can only excommunicate them from their society, and
withdraw from them their fellowship.
🙂 “therefore the church is true” 🙂
Janet
End of story you say, ““I then went into the president office & spent the evening. Bishop Blackburn was present. The subject Came up of some persons leaving Provo who had Apostatized. Some thought that Bishop Blackburn & President Snow was to blame. Brother Joseph Young presented THE THING to president Young. But When the Circumstances were told President Brigham Young SUSTAINED THE BRETHREN who presided at Provo…
The subject being talked about was not Thomas Lewis, it was about some persons leaving Provo who had apostatized. Some thought the it was because of the actions of Bishop Blackburn and President Snow.
Interesting that you would take that out of context to prove your point, here is the page where you can verify what you completely missed.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CqlRdgaaT7QJ:www.nhfelt.org/Doc_Other/Woodruff_Wilford.pdf Wilford Woodruff’s Journal&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgR8nF4WwfctVYrz-5Tga_MMMQD7_abO9kAEbBQGdGtnhBZh8unaJLpTQ7isnZPiwYxsVDps0qB0UsJEYK8Br9jdWw-5Tccv7ru_on8E13B731QuEXMhx4gsNPCJd-e6FojFEsl&sig=AHIEtbQhGIoCCcpHXV_pzQARSVYYp2jFZQ
Janet.
I use a daily Bible reading and prayer book published by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. This prayer book is mostly Scripture, but each day has a few readings as well… here is most of yesterdays readings(emphasis mine):
“The SPIRIT has His own congregation in the world, which is the mother that conceives and bears every Christian through God’s Word (Galatians 4:26). Through the Word He reveals and preaches. He illumines and kindles the hearts, so that they understand, accept, cling to, and persevere in the Word.” (1 Corinthians 2:12)
Where the SPIRIT does not cause the Word to be preached and roused in the heart so that it is understood, it is lost (Matthew 13:19)…For where Christ is not preached, there is no HOLY SPIRIT who creates, calls, and gathers the Christian Church, without which no one can come to Christ the Lord. – Large Catechism II 42, 45
The HOLY SPIRIT carries on His work without ceasing to the Last Day. For that purpose he has appointed a congregation upon earth by which He speaks and does everything. For He has not yet brought together all His Christian Church (John 10:16) or granted all forgiveness. Therefore, we believe in Him who daily brings us into the fellowship of this Christian Church through the Word and the forgiveness of sins He bestows, increases, and strengthens faith. So when He has done it all, and we abide in this and die to the world and to all evil, He may finally make us perfectly and forever holy. Even now we expect this in faith through the Word. – Large Catechism II 61-62
Almost all the readings were teachings on the Holy Spirit. I only just read these today – but thought they spoke perfectly to the comments here on the Holy Spirit.
“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.”
Christians have a clear understanding of who the Holy Spirit is. I am still not sure who the Mormons understand the Spirit to be.
I must have caught my Lutheran prayer book on an off kilter day – they were talking about the Holy Spirit, rather than the One to whom the Spirit directs us – the Lord Jesus Christ.
As far as the topic of this article I think all of these restorations, sealings, etc are just as effective as buying indulgences for your dead relatives. You could buy a million dollar indulgence and it wouldn’t help your poor dead relative one bit. Likewise, restoring, resealing, reinstating temple blessings, double sealing and rebaptizing for the apostate dead, crossing your heart and hoping to die, getting a pardon written up by the Mormon prophet on parchment paper, etc. etc. won’t buy God off – He won’t be placated by these ridiculous schemes, nor is he fooled. There is one way to God – by faith through grace in the Lord Jesus Christ – all other schemes are just that, unfruitful and pointless schemes.
Janet:
You obviously can’t read. The quote I gave is EXACTLY the same as your site. If it was only about Apostates leaving Provo, why did they say ‘the subject of eunuchs came up…’ They were obviously talking about the incident of castration, and Young sustained it.
In reply to this lie:
“we do not believe that any religious society has authority to … put them in jeopardy of either life or
limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them.”
First, there is the incident above. Now let’s take a look at the second statement a little more closely:
In 1978 a Lawyer contacted Bruce McConkie to ask him if Blood Atonement was a doctrine of the Church, and this was McConkie’s reply:
“If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No.” (Thomas McAffee Letter, 1978)
Three paragraphs later, McConkie qualifies the statement (typical Mormon behavior) with this comment:
“In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person. These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice. However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation.”
There are two crucial points that Mr. McConkie makes and it is that there ARE some sins for which the blood of Christ does not ‘pay in full’ & that this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation. He then goes on:
“There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins. Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is
no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses. From the day of Joseph Smith to the present there has been no single instance of so-called blood atonement under any pretext.”
He then says this, which is an outright lie & it is sad that so-called Apostles of the Lord Jesus feel the need to have to stoop to such deception in order to deny something in the light of ‘Mainstreaming’ the Church.
“Brigham Young and the others were speaking of a theoretical principle that operated in ages past and not in either their or our day. As I recall, Brigham Young’s illustrations were taken from the day of Moses and the history of ancient Israel and could not be applied today.” (source above)
How long did it take him to come up with this totally flimsy and deceptive statement? Why did he put ‘As I Recall’ in the sentence? Did he not have every statement and diary in the Church Historians Office at his disposal? I find it hard to believe that the ‘Scripture King’ of the Church could not know about the following quotes. Keep in mind that this is what McConkie said:
1. There is no DOCTRINE in the Mormon Church about ‘the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins.
2. There are some sins for which the blood of Jesus ALONE does not cleanse a person.
3. He says there is no such thing as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins.
4. This DOCTRINE (didn’t he just say there was none?) can only operate in a day where there is no separation of Church & State.
5. From the day of Smith to the present there has been no instance of blood atonement under any pretext, also concerning blood atonement, there “has no application in any dispensation when there is a separation of Church and State”.
6. Any statements made by leaders pertains to a theoretical principle that was neither revealed of practiced by the Church.
7. Blood Atonement is only a synonym for Capital Punishment.
Well that should be the end of it, the ‘Apostle’ has spoken. But is it? Is McConkie lying? You bet he is!
Press on, Constant Reader, and you will see.
1. There is no doctrine:
A. False. McConkie himself said there was, three paragraphs after he said there was none.
2. McConkie gets this right.
A. True. There IS a Doctrine on Blood Atonement.
3. There is no such doctrine that grants a remission of sins because his own blood is shed…
A. Really? Read these quotes”
“if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood.” -Jedediah Grant, JOD:4:50 (1856)
Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; & under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands… There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it;... (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)
“… if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants” (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p.375).
“If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, & never suffer him to commit another iniquity. I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not.
I would consider it just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of his sins.” – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109
“I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing & counterfeiting their throats should be cut” (“Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” Feb. 24,1847).
Notice the rhetoric here. They are not talking about past dispensations, they are talking about the current one.
4. Blood Atonement can only operate where there is no separation of Church and state.
A. False. See this quote:
“The people of Utah are the only ones in this nation who have taken effectual measures… to prevent adulteries and criminal connections between the sexes. The punishment, for these crimes is death to both male and female. And this law is written on the hearths and printed in the thoughts of the whole people.” – Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 223
We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him…” – Apostle Jebediah M. Grant, Deseret News, July 27, 1854
5. No instances of Blood Atonement Under ANY circumstances…or in ANY dispensation where there is a separation of Church & State:
A. False. There were many. Here is one (according to Brigham Young) that took place at the time of Christ:
“Jesus said to His disciples, `Ye are the salt of the earth, and if salt loses its saving principle, it is then good for nothing but to be cast out.’ Instead of reading it just as it is, almost all of you read it as it is not. Jesus meant to say, `If you have lost the saving principles, you Twelve Apostles, and you believe in my servants the Twelve, you shall be like unto the salt that has lost its saving principles: it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.’ Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him it is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out,
but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out.” (Heber C. Kimball, JOD:6:125,126)
Here is a chilling account by Mormon Bishop John D. Lee of Blood Atonement in action:
“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)
6. Theoretical Principle never revealed or practiced by the Church.
A. False. See quotes above.
7. Blood Atonement ONLY a synonym for capital punishment.
A. False. As shown above there were many other sins covered under the doctrine. This statement is
really partially true, & a smokescreen to hide what Blood Atonement really is.
Again, I will say, there is NO REASON for ANY statements like the above to be made by any ‘so-called’ followers of Jesus. HIS policy was clear: Turn the other cheek. It is interesting that both Bishop John D. Lee & another murderer, Bill Hickman BOTH had the ‘Restoration of Blessings’ ordinance done for them. This shows that the Church condones the murders they committed, and wanted to make sure they would ‘get their blessings’ and wives in the world to come. Therefore THE CHURCH IS FALSE.’=
Still haven’t heard a word on what PERFECT KNOWLEDGE is, and how you get it. Typical.
The rest of the story not spoken of.
1). He said, “under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.” (Young 1856a, p. 247) But he warned anyone who intended to “execute judgment” that he or she “has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, …else they had better let the matter alone.”
2). One hearsay account was given by John D. Lee, who was killed for his involvement in the Mountain Meadows massacre (see below). Lee stated in his memoirs that he had heard of only one person who had properly received death by blood atonement – by willingly atoning for the crime:
Rosmos Anderson was a Danish man who had come to Utah…He had married a widow lady…and she had a daughter that was fully grown at the time of the reformation…
Must I go on and on to satisfy those who seek to assume so much as true facts, when in fact if we were to investigate everything spoken against Brigham Young and others there seems to be a lot more involved when one reads the full context of their messages.
Janet
“You obviously can’t read. The quote I gave is EXACTLY the same as your site. If it was only about Apostates leaving Provo, why did they say ‘the subject of eunuchs came up…’ They were obviously talking about the incident of castration, and Young sustained it.”
Really, then I hope all our guest and visitors will read the same site I gave to verify that you seem to have gotten it wrong again.
But when the circumstances were told, President Brigham Young sustained the brethrenwho presided at Provo. He said they had done (right). The subject of eunuchscame up and Joseph said that he would rather die than to be made a eunuch.Brigham said the day would come when thousands would be made eunochs in orderfor them to be saved in the Kingdom of God. The subject of women and adultery came up. Joseph asked if a woman and man who were married could commit adultery.
So if you keep reading on you see that he changed the subject to eunuch, Listen how he addressed this, “The subject of”
Reading on in the same paragraph he then changed to the topic of of women and adultery, Listen how he addressed this, “The subject of”. I think you see my point, will that change your mind? no, not when you’re agenda is to misrepresent.
Janet 🙂
” There were many. Here is one (according to Brigham Young) that took place at the time of Christ:”
Then you state that it is quoted in the Journal of Discourse, but it was not Brigham that stated it, it was Kimball.
Small point but at least I have corrected your misrepresentation again.
Janet.
The entire portion of the quote is there, and I would recommend that everyone go to that link and read the entire ‘excerpt’ of Woodruff’s diaries.
Again, you have to read it knowing it was a diary, not a word for word account. Blackburn was there, talked about apostasy. Some thought Blackburn & Snow to blame & Joseph Young presented THE THING to Young, but when the circumstances were told Young sustained them in what they did. The subject of Eunuchs came up, what is that? Castration, & why did Young go on to say that there would be thousands of them to come to save them in the kingdom of God? Because that is what they had just been talking about. They were there, at the time of the incident to present their side of the story. If Young was not talking about the castration, why did he say they would be doing thousands of them in the future? No, I’m not misrepresenting anything, you just do not want to see, as usual. What you are missing is the big point and instead of focusing on a typo, you should be focusing on why a prophet would talk about castrating people and give his approval to it. What I see is someone ignoring all the quotes about blood atonement and the lies of Bruce McConkie. What I see is someone who spouts scripture about perfect knowledge but can’t or won’t explain how you get it and can have PERFECT knowldege. All you can do it try to wiggle out of what was said and then verified by Young when he said someday there would be thousands of incidents like the one just committed by Blackburn & Snow. You can’t, because it is there in black and white and you know it.
Here is a Professor of Church History G. Larson at BYU’s take on Lee’s quote:
“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 stepdaughter 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 meaning of the DOCTRINE [huh? what Doctrine? McConkie said there was none] and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] Reformation.” (Utah Historical Quarterly, January, 1958, page 62, note 39)
Again, the point: Why was restoration of blessings done to John D. Lee & Bill Hickman who were murderers? This takes approval from the First Presidency. Why was it done? If according to Mormons there is no forgiveness for murder in this world and the world to come, why was it done? Let the action speak for itself. The Church condoned the violence and then rewarded them years later by restoring their priesthood, wives & Church membership. Here is a chilling quote from those diaries of Woodruff:
May 25, 1861: While on a trip to the southern settlements with Brigham Young,we visited the Mountain Meadow Monument put up at the burial place of 120persons killed by Indians in 1857. The pile of stone was about 12 feet high,but beginning to tumble down. A wooden cross was placed on top with thefollowing words: Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little. [with Young’s help}
On November 30, 1871, T. B. H. Stenhouse received a letter by an individual who was present at a meeting in Provo, Utah. The letter indicated that Bishop Blackburn was also strongly pushing for the emasculation of men who were disobedient to their leaders:
“‘Dear Stenhouse: I Have read carefully the accompanying statement about the “Reformation.”… If you want to travel wider and show the effect in the country of the inflammatory speeches delivered in Salt Lake City at that time, you can mention the Potter and Parrish murders at Springville, the barbarous castration of a young man in San Pete, and, to cap the climax, the Mountain-Meadows massacre… Threats of personal violence or death were common in the settlements against all who dared to speak against the priesthood, or in any way protest against this “reign of terror.”
“‘I was at a Sunday meeting in the spring of 1857, in Provo, when the news of the San Pete castration was referred to by the presiding bishop-Blackburn. Some men in Provo had rebelled against authority in some trivial matter, and Blackburn shouted in his Sunday meeting-a mixed congregation of all ages and both sexes-“I want the people of Provo to understand that the boys in Provo can use the knife as well as the boys in San Pete. Boys, get your knives ready, there is work for you! We must not be behind San Pete in good works.” The result of this was that two citizens, named Hooper and Beauvere, both having families at Provo, left the following night... Their only offence was rebellion against the priesthood.
“‘This man, Blackburn, was continued in office at least a year after this…
“‘The qualifications for a bishop were a blind submission and obedience to Brigham and the authorities, and a firm unrelented government of his subjects.” (The Rocky Mountain Saints, by T. B. H. Stenhouse, 1873, pages 301-302)
This gives you the backround for the meeting with Young. I am not misrepresenting anything.
This is quite a discussion. What it tells me is that it (Mormonism) can be whatever the Mormon wants it to be including invented history.
I’m still waiting here for one of our Mormon friends to tell us who their god is and what spirit they are hearing from. That’s really the bottom-line question, “Who is the Mormon god, Jesus and spirit?” As Christians, we recognize that the spirit of Mormonism is not the Holy Spirit spoken of in the Bible.
Mormonism draws an unbiblical distinction between the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit. In Mormonism the Holy Ghost is a Personage of Spirit. The Holy Spirit is some type of a “force”. Mormonism, with it’s basis in the occult has at its core, a different god, Jesus and Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit. But once a person accepts Joseph Smith’s “scripture” it’s all down hill.
The Mormon go to guy, Bruce McConkie said, “The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a Personage of Spirit, a Spirit Person, a Spirit Man, a Spirit Entity. He can be in only one place at one time, and he does not and cannot transform himself into any other form or image than that of the Man whom he is…” (Mormon Doctrine, p.359)
So, as usual, it’s good to define terms when talking with cultists.
Some claim that, In 1861, Young brought an entourage to Mountain Meadows and had the cairn and cross destroyed, while exclaiming, “Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little”. However, others claim it was torn down and then re-built in 1864 by the U.S. military.
My, my some more real hard evidence and no source to apply it too. Amazing what some will go to when having an agenda of total disregard for any and all facts or evidence that they can lay claim too. I have shown already, you pick and choose very carefully the snippets that seem to prove your points, but when actually verified the proof is lost in the quantity of garbage passed off as good old talking points without merit. Who are the, “some who claim”.
Janet
You claim it came from Woodruff, really? and you can now provide the source of the diary, date and page number where he stated such.
Janet
McConkie quoted Joseph F. Smith sixth prophet and president of the Mormon church:
“President Joseph F. Smith said; ‘The Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit can no more be omnipresent in person than can the Father or the Son…..It is not the Holy Ghost who in person lighteth every man who is born into the world, but it is the light of Christ, the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the source of intelligence, which permeates all nature, which lighteth every man and fills the immensity of space. You may call it the Spirit of God, you may call it the influence of God’s intelligence, you may call it the substance of his power; no matter what it is called, it is the spirit of intelligence that permeates the universe and gives to the spirits of men understanding…’
In Mormon Doctrine (pp. 752-53) we read “The Spirit of god which emanates from Deity may be likened to electricity….which fills the earth and the air, and is everywhere present”.
So the bottom line in Mormonism, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit who is not omnipresent. He is a deity but can only be in one place at one time. The Holy Spirit is a force like electricity, a power employed by the Holy Ghost. So the finite Mormon Holy Ghost must use this force to exert influence.
Mormonism is truly a messed-up religion that attempts to utilize terms and words similar to Christianity but with totally different meanings. The problem is, Mormons don’t tell folks this. So when Mormons start talking about the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, we may as well shut down the conversation because we aren’t talking about the same thing.
We know the source of Mormonism as articulated by the occultist Joseph Smith. Mormons have chosen to follow the spirit entity he attached himself to at their own peril.
One of the ‘some’ was obviously Wilford Woodruff. Did you miss that? The SOURCE: his diary entry. I love it when Mormons want to discredit their own prophets and call multitudes of quotes ‘snippets’. What are the FACTS then? You have presented nothing but YOUR OPINION. The quotes DO prove my point, that is why you are trying so hard to focus on typos (And the quote was attributed to the correct person at the end so how could it be a misrepresentation?) With the massive amount of quotes I use to PROVE McConkie a liar and Brigham & the Bunch is Salt Lake City condoning violence, all you can do is focus on a typo! If it were just a pick and choose, why SO MANY quotes? It was DOCTRINE, the MORMONS TAUGHT IT and PRACTICED IT (even Church History Professors admit this) & all you can do (as usual) is talk about snippets and garbage. At least I agree on one point you made, this is GARBAGE, right from the mouths of the Mormon apostles & prophets. It is not of God and in direct opposition to the teachings of our Lord, and you can keep believing the lie, but it is what it is.
All I’m asking for is the Woodruff entry you quoted, and yet you deflected with little more then more talking points. If you can’t provide the source, the date and page number then just admit it.
Janet.
Janet, I don’t know if this will help you, but I found the Wilford Woodruff quote in Juanita Brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, page 182. The entry dated May 25, 1861, Brooks wrote, “The quotation copied directly from the Journal of Wilford Woodruff in the archives of the Latter-day Saints historian is without doubt the basis for the entry in ‘Journal History of the Church’ for the same date,since the wording is identical, except that the remark of President Young has been omitted.”
“Three and a half years after the massacre at Mountain Meadows Brigham Young made a tour of southern Utah and met with John D. Lee. Young told Lee that those killed had been relatives of those who had murdered the prophets and so had merited their fate. Six days later Young visited the massacre site. He found that a pile of stones 12 feet high had been erected by American soldiers as a monument to the dead. Topping the rock cairn was a wooden cross bearing the inscription: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Young read the inscription aloud, but altered it to reflect his own feelings. Accounts vary, but Young is remembered saying either, “Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; and I have taken a little,” or, “Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I have repaid.” Then, lifting “his right arm to the square,” Young silently directed his men to destroy the monument. “[I]n five minutes there wasn’t one stone left upon another,” one of those present reported. “He didn’t have to tell us what he wanted done. We understood” (Blood of the Prophets, p.247; Mountain Meadows Massacre, p.182-183).”
Thank you Sharon, I took the time to do some research and found the following. It would seem that grindael has taken some liberties in stating that it came from Woodruffs Diary. If we are going to seek for accuracy then it would also be nice to find a way to verify remarks made that don’t seem to have witness to events that some seem to think took place. I have tried finding the quote in his Journal and so far nothing came up.
Sincerely, Janet
Again, here is the quote READ THE WHOLE THING:
May 25, 1861: While on a trip to the southern settlements with Brigham Young,we visited the Mountain Meadow Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons killed by Indians in 1857. The pile of stone was about 12 feet high, but beginning to tumble down. A wooden cross was placed on top with the following words: Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.
Now GO TO THE LINK YOU QUOTED ABOVE that has excerpts of Woodruff’s Diary. Scroll down to the DATE OF THE ENTRY, MAY 25, 1861. The entire quote is there, same as here which is unchanged, unedited and not ‘misrepresented’ or a ‘snippet’. Just like everything else I quote.
Still nothing on PERFECT KNOWLEGE, what it is and how you acquire it.
Not everything else you quote has been right on, that is why I check out everything you state. It keeps everyone honest and allows all of us to verify. I will continue to research since it helps me in my ever seeking for the truth.
Janet.
The problem with Mormon “truth” seeking is that all truth is based on the Mormon’s testimony. It doesn’t matter what information is presented or evidence uncovered the bottom line for the Mormon is that “therefore the church is true”. Real truth seekers like grindael, ended up leaving Mormonism because they were willing to honestly seek the truth no matter where it led them. The badge of honor in Mormonism is to keep believing even if the church is proven wrong. Because in Mormonism the church and the prophets can’t be wrong. That’s not truth seeking, that’s data mining to support a strongly held position.
It occurs to me that this re-instating of Lyman is probably another one of those things that gives, whether they realize it or not, the Mormons more hope in their church. I mean, Joseph was a sleezeball, and he’s standing right next to god now. So, everybody will be fine, sinful as they are. Right? Makes sense to me.
There’s a big difference between seeking “information” and seeking the “truth”. Since Mormons believe they already have the “truth” what they are looking for is information. Now it really doesn’t matter what the information is because it will always verify the “truth”.
So Joseph Smith, for example, has 33 women he calls wives including a couple of adolescent kids and married women. Now that’s information. Incidentally it’s also true. Yet there are Mormons who will deny the truth of that information. Those that grudgingly admit that it’s the truth, will conclude that it doesn’t make any difference regarding the truth of whether or not he was a prophet or a lecherous jerk.
In the words of the old X Files TV show “the truth is out there.” Mormons, however, have a strange relationship with the truth because all roads lead to the same destination for Mormons. And that is that what they believe is true. Despite the fact that it isn’t. “Ignorance is bliss” could be the Mormon motto.
Falcon, you’re a very interesting poster, kind of a in your face, matter of fact, and seemingly right about most everything. I think that at least I have dealt with the issues addressed to me. When asked if I believe in Adam God Theory, I did not skirt the issues with a denial. When asked about Christ and Satan being brothers, I again admitted we believe this. I have admitted that as the Church in it’s infancy and growth, mistakes were made. Ignorant bliss, hardly. Seeking information and finding truth is a correct appraisal of what I do. Trying to understand the why of your deep convictions and agenda of disproving Mormonism would require a understanding of your background and also more of why you keep such deep convictions that seem immovable.
grindael, your a good poster, but I get bored with your lengthy and tedious remarks, many I know are right out of the Books you are bent on reading. I often wonder, since you state you’re a ex-mormon, if you find anything at all you could deem as good or redeeming qualities of our doctrine. Notice I’m asking about our doctrine and not any specific person. I have seen enough of your criticism and accusation concerning most everyone in Leadership, almost to the point that I feel you fault the leaders more then the Doctrine.
Janet
Janet,
“There is no gray area as many would like to think, black or white there is no middle ground.”
Gray areas are continually tested in legal matters, lawyers often base their professions on these, getting guilty people released on technicalities which often seem trivial to the case, as far as the less educated general population views it.
The LDS church has some gray areas, at least they are gray when viewed from the outside. For example the word of wisdom. Mormons avoid the hot beverages tea and coffee, but allow the consumption of herbals and hot chocolate. In addition tea and coffee can be prepared iced, but those are prohibited. The trickest is around decaf coffee, allowed on the grounds that its a transitional beverage for new members. Cola beverages with caffeine as far as I know are not prohibited from the WOW. If this is not a gray area with contradictions, I don’t know what is.
The jay walking example is interesting. Some religions get very technical about particular practices, like the sabbath day. Some jews brake secular law, rather than the sabbath. Signalized crosswalks may require a pedestrian to trigger their operation makes the system unusable at times for Jewish people who observe the Sabbath. This constitutes working on the sabbath.
“I’ve done that also, and your point being.” My point being is that people technically break laws and justify them on some basis. Some of them are trival and practical and of little consequence, sometimes they are not.
Janet sez: “Falcon, you’re a very interesting poster…” and “grindael, your a good poster, but I get bored…”
The virtue of Falcon’s and grindael’s style, is the virtue in their style. It’s always the same, straight up, no rocks, no twist.
Enki,
Ten commandments, black and white, Salvation, black and white, hell, black and white, nature of God, black and white, people, not so black and white.
Janet
Janet,
“Ten commandments, black and white, Salvation, black and white, hell, black and white, nature of God, black and white, people, not so black and white.”
I don’t think so, especially not the LDS view of salvation, in the LDS view one can receive a degree of salvation, and the vast majority of people will reside in the lower kingdoms of glory. So ‘hell’ is not so black and white. I think the distinctness of heaven/hell and salvation is more accurately within the realm of bible literalism, not LDS theology.
The ten commandments are not so black and white if closely examined. Just a few examples:
The 4th commandment, keeping the sabbath day holy. Its on the SEVENTH DAY, not the first day. Most christians observe the first day calling it the ‘lords day’. In some countries the LDS people may observe this on another day. In Israel its observed on the seventh day, Saturday. In Arab countries its observed on Friday, in sync with Islam. What is considered ‘work’ on the sabbath is sometimes gray. Example, if its ok to tie your shoe with one hand verses two. O
#6, thou shall not kill. Some interpret this as applying only to ‘innocent blood’, and excludes people who are guilty of a number of offenses religious or secular. May also exclude animals, or people during times of war. In some cases abortion may excluded under certain circumstances.
“The Mormon position has been described as allowing a “….child conceived out of rape or incest to be punished for the sins of the father.” 8 That is, a child conceived in a loving relationship is considered innocent life and must not be aborted except under very unusual circumstances. But a child conceived as a result of rape or incest is not innocent life, shares the sin of the father, and can be aborted if the mother — after counseling and assessing the will of God through prayer — chooses this option.”
(Daniel Hoyt, “The 99% rule,” 2006-APR-21,)
From, Religious Tolerance org, Beliefs of the LDS Church concerning abortion
You have YOUR opinion Janet, and I have mine. I haven’t heard from anyone that I misquoted someone, (except for the typo of attributing BY to a HCK quote), but then HCK’s name was at the end of the quote – so it was obvious what it was, yet you labeled it as misrepresentation, which It was not.
Your statement ‘not everything else you quote is right on’ seems to be made to discredit me, and I see that as a tactic of one backed in a corner, with nothing better to do but jump on typos and make accusations.
You say I misrepresented on the Woodruff quote (the first one, but I quoted the relevant material without editing it or leaving anything out). Like most Mormons, you lack common sense when it comes to quotes, (because you give apologists the benefit of the doubt) especially if you think that there would be a whole discourse to take out of context when it was only one part of a diary entry. (Which Woodruff many times wrote in shorthand & then re-transcribed) The salient points were all there, for all to see. Before you ACCUSE me, like you did here:
“It would seem that grindael has taken some liberties in stating that it came from Woodruffs Diary.”
How about doing some research FIRST? Is it just easier to try & discredit someone to make what they post SEEM to be distorted or out of context? That is the essence of your snippet comments you make over and over again like a broken record.
You make blanket statements, and then when I ask you to clarify those, you ignore it. (PERFECT KNOWLDEGE). This is also typical apologist/denial behavior: Divert the issues, confuse the readers, and it reveals that you really don’t want to “find” the truth. You, like your leaders, have your own made-up version of the truth, and wish to discourage anyone from hearing the REAL truth, which I quote ‘right on’.
You must know I WAS a Mormon for many years. I studied at BYU, spoke with many professors,
served a Mission, read the BOM from cover to cover more than once, went through the Temple at Salt Lake, been to Ricks College on many trips, visited Cumorah and the Smith Homestead & Nauvoo. I have read the entire Journal of Discourses and have many Mormon Books, all read by me. I do not quote out of context or lightly. I have been to many of the Farms & Fair sites, and have seen many anti sites that HAVE distorted Mormon Doctrine to make points. (The Godmakers II is a good example of this) I have on occasion NOT used quotes because of what I have read on pro-mormon sites. I have made my intentions clear more than once. I will do so again now to set the record straight.
I believe the Church is false, and take the challenge of Smith that he made in 1844 seriously: “I have the truth and am at the DEFIANCE of the world to contradict me.” – King Follet Discourse. I did not appreciate being deceived and lied to for many years, and did not appreciate being told to shut up and follow the brethren or there’s the door.
Unfortunately, unlike some, I could not just live with the lies, and I had to give up my desire of teaching at BYU and years of hard work and study. You don’t know my motives, and you can’t see inside of my heart. If you want to offer your version of what I quote then do so, but don’t call them ‘snippets’ and walk away like you do. You point the finger in ignorance, and IF (like you say) you want to know the TRUTH then just research it for yourself and post quotes FROM THE BRETHERN, not apologists, to make your point. But it takes time and patience. Do you have that Janet? Do you have the time and patience to do your own research like I do to defend your position?
The early Mormon leaders meant everything they said LITERALLY, and that is how the Mormon Message is presented, how I was taught to present it when I was a Missionary, and to see Mormons now saying ‘this was opinion’ and that was ‘rhetoric’ and the incredible way they will lie in the face
of what was said in all seriousness – is an insult to those of us who once believed what we were taught: That God inspired those men.
Young said everything he taught was as good as scripture. Now, Mormons fall back on the standard works to defend the indefensible. You want to know what Smith & Young thought of the ‘Standard Works’? Read this quote by Young (and look it up, it is in the same place as the others from Woodruff’s diary Jan. 27th 1860):
When I got through, Hyrum got up and made a confession for not including the living oracles.”
THIS is the essence of what I was taught in the Mormon Church. If they are living oracles, what they teach (as Young firmly said) is as good as scripture and SUPERCEDES THE STANDARD WORKS. That is the WHOLE REASON FOR HAVING PROPHETS. There are men who are REQUIRED by their callings to SEE JESUS. So you don’t get to pick and choose. Young taught Adam was God, and McConkie & Kimball (other living oracles) said it was false doctrine and anyone who believed it would be damned. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT. YOU CAN’T. There is no middle ground here, as much as some want there to be. I’M NOT PERFECT & HAVE MADE MISTAKES, but the farthest thing on my mind is INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO DECEIVE. I have read what was said. I believe it is false & I hold Smith & Young responsible for it. I take their statements LITERALLY as they were intended. I believed they were IN DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH GOD AT ALL TIMES, AS THEY THEMSELVES PROCLAIMED IN STATEMENTS LIKE THIS:
“You know when you have a vision, you can see as well all over your body as out of your eyes. When Joseph had a revelation, he had the eyes of the Lord. He saw as the Lord sees. How did I know what was going on in Washington? I have known what was going on there all the time, and I know what is going on in other people’s houses. I know it by the spirit of God; it is revealed to me.” (WW. Diary, Jan 31, 1861)
As Taylor said: ‘If we walk in the light of the Lord, we should have revelations all the time.’ It is ONE or the OTHER. Either they were prophets or they were not. A true prophet DOES NOT TEACH FALSE DOCTRINE, DECEIVE, OR KEEP SECRETS & LIE ABOUT IT . FOR WHATEVER REASON. PERIOD.
One more quote from Woodruff, & this is what Young said about why Smith was murdered:
August 28, 1857: President Young stayed 3plus hours in compiling his history. He remarked that the revelation upon a plurality of wives was given to Joseph Smith in 1831. He revealed it to Oliver Cowdery alone upon the solemn pledge that he would not reveal it or act upon it, but he did act upon it in a secret manner and that was the cause of his overthrow.
Even Young was aware of what the consequences were of Smith’s lying, although Young did the same thing himself. (with Adam-god among other things, after it was rejected by many in the Church).
What the leadership today want Mormons to do is throw out their common sense. Mormons are told to follow the prophets, because they CANNOT lead the Church astray, but how many were led astray by the false teaching of Adam-god? How many fundamentalist groups are there who espouse violence and BLOOD ATONEMENT in the face of Young and others teachings from the pulpit? Why did they hold John Taylor’s revelation that polygamy would NEVER be abandoned in such derision when an Apostle, his son, said it was a genuine revelation? Because they pick and choose, in direct opposition to what they teach everyone else to do. How much damage did this one prophet [Young] do? Or was Young the true prophet and those that rejected his teachings false? Why should anyone who thought Mormonism Jesus’ True Church have to go through that? Do the ends justify the means? That is what Mormons are saying here, and It is NOT the WAY of JESUS.
The only thing I could do, they only thing left for me was to turn to Jesus and the Bible. There I found what I was looking for & I implore all Mormons to leave the Church & do the same.
Addendum (the other was written before I saw your last post – and you are not the first to mention the length of my quotes – but I do this out of an almost fanatical thoroughness to present evidence because I have seen first hand how if one quotes from a source or two, you are told you are distorting or taking out of context, so I quote all I can), but I do blame the leaders, for they are the ones who make the doctrine & defend it.
Obviously I once saw a lot of good in Mormon Doctrine. After all, I thought to make the study of it and the teaching of it my life’s work.
But I reached a point (that many other Church Historians have) that the pieces don’t all fit.
After I returned from my mission and went to BYU, I got a real taste of what was taught in the Church, the contradictions, lack of evidence for the BOM, the coverups, & the lies of Smith & the current leaders and their ‘watering down’ the History of the Church to suit their own ends.
I asked myself, how could this be? I see more and more now the Leaders of the Church telling members to ignore scientific evidence and take things on ‘faith’. That is fine to do, TO A POINT. It is what many did with the Bible for many, many years.
But we live in a day and age now, when things have changed. The BOM should have massive proofs, but there is NOTHING THERE. There is a whole movement in the Church now to try and make the BOM a non-historical revelation, but it won’t fly and the leaders condemn that. (Too many statements to the contrary)
So what do we have? If you read the above you see I believe you can’t have it both ways. I accepted the leaders at face value and they lied. They continue to do so. Why? Why won’t they open the archives to independent historians? They have something to hide.
I quote out of all those books to make Mormon Doctrine KNOWN to those that pass by here. Perhaps one will read and question, like I did, and turn to HIM who gives true peace, without the confusion and justifications.
It’s time for me to play Mormon and give one of the standard LDS responses; “I’ve known all that for years and it doesn’t effect my testimony one bit.” Within LDS circles that will earn the Mormon special status and recognition. It sounds like a profession of great faith but in reality it’s a fingers in the ears and a singing of “lalalalalalala, I can’t hear you.”