Posted on 02/10/2013 10:20:46 AM PST by Colofornian
Woman accused of brutally murdering boyfriend describes religious conversion and sexual relationship...
(Excerpt) Read more at video.foxnews.com ...
I meant “participate” in the sense that I don’t feel the need to cut & paste acres of text in multi-color font. Sorry to confuse you.
Are you saying that you just waste your time watching us Christians point out the heresies of MORMONism?
That's downright STRANGE!
I don’t need to justify how I spend my free time (or downtime) to anyone.
Then you'd make a mighty poor MORMON!!!
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9596/rec/19 search for page 218
Or, apparently, much of anything of an instructional nature as well.
Just to yourself.
You participate and don't just watch.
Embrace your hypocrisy and enjoy it.
You think I'm participating, and Elsie does not. Like I said, most amusing.
BLOOD ATONEMENT from “History of the Mormons” by Howard Zinn...
As early as 1853 intimations of the doctrine that an offending member might be put out of the way were given from the Tabernacle pulpit. Orson Hyde, on April 9 of that year, spoke, in the form of a parable, of the fate of a wolf that a shepherd discovered in his flock of sheep, saying that, if let alone, he would go off and tell the other wolves, and they would come in; “whereas, if the first should meet with his just deserts, he could not go back and tell the rest of his hungry tribe to come and feast themselves on the flock. If you say the priesthood, or authorities of the church here, are the shepherd, and the church is the flock, you can make your own application of this figure.”
In September, 1856, there was a notable service in the bowery in Salt Lake City at which several addresses were made. Heber C. Kimball urged repentance, and told the people that Brigham Young’s word was “the word of God to this people.” Then Jedediah M. Grant first gave open utterance to a doctrine that has given the Saints, in late years, much trouble to explain, and the carrying out of which in Brigham Young’s days has required many a Mormon denial. This is, what has been called in Utah the doctrine of “blood atonement,” and what in reality was the doctrine of human sacrifice.
Grant declared that some persons who had received the priesthood committed adultery and other abominations, “get drunk, and wallow in the mire and filth.” “I say,” he continued, “there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations; those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do; their sins are too deep for that.”* He explained that he was only preaching the doctrine of St. Paul, and continued: “I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers, we need a place designated where we can shed their blood.... If any of you ask, Do I mean you, I answer yes. If any woman asks, Do I mean her, I answer yes.... We have been trying long enough with these people, and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word, but in deed.”** *
Elder C. W. Penrose made an explanation of the view taken by the church at that time, in an address in Salt Lake City on October 12, 1884, that was published in a pamphlet entitled “Blood Atonement as taught by Leading Elders.” This was deemed necessary to meet the criticisms of this doctrine. He pleaded misrepresentation of the Saints’ position, and defined it as resting on Christ’s atonement, and on the belief that that atonement would suffice only for those who have fellowship with Him. He quoted St. Paul as authority for the necessity of blood shedding (Hebrews ix. 22), and Matthew xii. 31, 32, and Hebrews x. 26, to show that there are sins, like blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which will not be forgiven through the shedding of Christ’s blood. He also quoted 1 John v. 16 as showing that the apostle and Brigham Young were in agreement concerning “sins unto death,” just as Young and the apostle agreed about delivering men unto Satan that their spirits might be saved through the destruction of their flesh (1 Corinthians v. 5).
Having justified the teaching to his satisfaction, he proceeded to challenge proof that any one had ever paid the penalty, coupling with this a denial of the existence of Danites. Elder Hyde, in his “Mormonism,” says (p. 179): “There are several men now living in Utah whose lives are forfeited by Mormon law, but spared for a little time by Mormon policy. They are certain to be killed, and they know it. They are only allowed to live while they add weight and influence to Mormonism, and, although abundant opportunities are given them for escape, they prefer to remain. So strongly are they infatuated with their religion that they think their salvation depends on their continued obedience, and their ‘blood being shed by the servants of God.’
Adultery is punished by death, and it is taught, unless the adulterer’s blood be shed, he can have no remission for this sin. Believing this firmly, there are men who have confessed this crime to Brigham, and asked him to have them killed. Their superstitious fears make life a burden to them, and they would commit suicide were not that also a crime.” ** Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, pp. 49, 50
Brigham Young, who followed Grant, said that he would explain how judgment would be “laid to the line.” “There are sins,” he explained, “that men commit, for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world nor 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 for their sins...I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it a strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.”
That these were not the mere expressions of a sudden impulse is shown by the fact that Young expounded this doctrine at even greater length a year later. Explaining what Christ meant by loving our neighbors as ourselves, he said: “Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant.... I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken, and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil.”* * Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, pp. 219, 220.
Stenhouse relates, as one of the “few notable cases that have properly illustrated the blood atonement doctrine,” that one of the wives of an elder who was sent on a mission broke her marriage vows during his absence. On his return, during the height of the “Reformation,” she was told that “she could not reach the circle of the gods and goddesses unless her blood was shed,” and she consented to accept the punishment. Seating herself, therefore, on her husband’s knee, she gave him a last kiss, and he then drew a knife across her throat. “That kind and loving husband still lives near Salt Lake City (1874), and preaches occasionally with great zeal.”* * “Rocky Mountain Saints,” p. 470.
John D. Lee, who says that this doctrine was “justified by all the people,” gives full particulars of another instance.
Among the Danish converts in Utah was Rosmos Anderson, whose wife had been a widow with a grown daughter. Anderson desired to marry his step-daughter also, and she was quite willing; but a member of the Bishop’s council wanted the girl for his wife, and he was influential enough to prevent Anderson from getting the necessary consent from the head of the church.
Knowing the professed horror of the church toward the crime of adultery, Anderson and the young woman, at one of the meetings during the “Reformation,” confessed their guilt of that crime, thinking that in this way they would secure permission to marry. But, while they were admitted to rebaptism on their confession, the coveted permit was not issued and they were notified that to offend would be to incur death. Such a charge was very soon laid against Anderson (not against the girl), and the same council, without hearing him, decided that he must die.
Anderson was so firm in the Mormon faith that he made no remonstrance, simply asking half a day for preparation. His wife provided clean clothes for the sacrifice, and his executioners dug his grave.
At midnight they called for him, and, taking him to the place, allowed him to kneel by the grave and pray. Then they cut his throat, “and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.” His wife, obeying instructions, announced that he had gone to California.* * “Mormonism Unveiled,” p. 282.
As an illustration of the opportunity which these times gave a polygamous priesthood to indulge their tastes, may be told the story of “the affair at San Pete.” Bishop Warren Snow of Manti, San Pete County, although the husband of several wives, desired to add to his list a good-looking young woman in that town When he proposed to her, she declined the honor, informing him that she was engaged to a younger man. The Bishop argued with her on the ground of her duty, offering to have her lover sent on a mission, but in vain. When even the girl’s parents failed to gain her consent, Snow directed the local church authorities to command the young man to give her up.
Finding him equally obstinate, he was one evening summoned to attend a meeting where only trusted members were present. Suddenly the lights were put out, he was beaten and tied to a bench, and Bishop Snow himself castrated him with a bowie knife. In this condition he was left to crawl to some haystacks, where he lay until discovered. “The young man regained his health,” says Lee, “but has been an idiot or quiet lunatic ever since, and is well known by hundreds of Mormons or Gentiles in Utah.”*
And the Bishop married the girl. Lee gives Young credit for being very “mad” when he learned of this incident, but the Bishop was not even deposed.** * Ibid., p. 285.
** Stenhouse quotes the following as showing that the San Pete outrage was scarcely concealed by the Mormon authorities:
“I was at a Sunday meeting, in the spring of 1857, in Provo, when the news of the San Pete incident 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.’” “Rocky Mountain Saints,” p. 302.
Now that your question has been answered, you can answer the one I directed to you. You've not been present for one prior to the year 1990 I take it. Feel free to correct that if I am error.
As to hatred being taught in a temple ceremony, haven't you seen the posts showing pre-1990 transcriptural evidences of non-mormon preachers being portrayed as being in pay of the devil? How would that not be seen as teaching hatred?
If hatred (and bigotry towards those not Mormon) is not much promoted in "temple ceremony," that leaves temple teachings, in other words, teachings from Mormon sources including but not limited to statmnents of it's founder (looked upon as a prophet of unquestionable authority) and other primary leaders of the past.
Looking into the latter, it is impossible to not see hatred of outsiders (those outside the cult) in myriad ways. Stick around, maybe we'll get lucky and see all of it posted again.
I very much understand though.
So keep not participating, your non participation is rather interesting.
My pleasure, but I still find semantics boring.
BlueDragon~ :” Now that your question has been answered ...”
No - the question was NOT answered !
I specificly asked whether or not he had attended a temple ceremony , or even been in a Temple ?
I didn’t inquire if he wore ‘magic underware’ , or any other question of dogma or tradition.
He made a declaratory statement that hate was taught in the Temple.
I merely asked if he had ever attended a Temple ceremony , or if he had ever been in one.
Was it too simple a question, or confusing ?
I repeat the question to ‘aMorePerfectUnion ‘ : “ Have you ever participated in a “Temple ceremony” , or even been there , inside ?”
Check the box : (yes __ ) or (No __)
Respectfully Titled Irish Kilt
BlueDragon ~:” Now that your question has been answered, you can answer the one I directed to you. You’ve not been present for one prior to the year 1990 I take it. Feel free to correct that if I am error.”
You are in ERROR on BOTH COUNTS !!
My direct question to ‘aMorePerfectUnion’ was not answered.
(See Above Post )
Also on the pre-1990 attendance.
Respectfully , Tilted Irish Kilt
Yeah, knife mags should be limited to seven stabbings, not counting the one in the chanber!
So; which one of us is right?
Were you not around during the Clinton debacle?
Did you miss the portion where I wrote, “I am using the word “participate” in the fashion that Elsie imagines it?” It really was a short sentence.
So it must be our idle chatter you find so mentally stimulating.
Interesting...
Oh; I saw in all right; I was merely wondering if what I have TYPED here is different than what you imagine I am imagining.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.