Gee it is your History not a myth or embellishment like many try to do to the LDS by taking things out of context.
There is a real body here and Michael Servetus is just one of many along the Reformers way...
There is the Annabaptist and Tyndale
Yep the gig is up no more secrets as you guys like to claim you are an open book... ha ha ha what hypocrits!
Now lets talk about Joseph Smith and the men he murdered and castrated...for the crime of not being a mormon..
(Confessions of John D. Lee, 1877 edition, pages 282-283)
In the same book John D. Lee made this startling statement:
“I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo... and I know of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and his Apostles while the Church was there.” (Ibid., page 284) Lee also revealed another very cruel practice which took place both in Nauvoo, Illinois, and in early Utah:
“In Utah it has been the custom with the Priesthood to make eunuchs of such men as were obnoxious to the leaders. This was done for a double purpose: first, it gave a perfect revenge, and next, it left the poor victim a living example to others of the dangers of disobeying counsel and not living as ordered by the Priesthood.
“In Nauvoo it was the orders from Joseph Smith and his apostles to beat, wound and castrate all Gentiles that the police could take in the act of entering or leaving a Mormon household under circumstances that led to the belief that they had been there for immoral purposes.... In Utah it was the favorite revenge of old, worn-out members of the Priesthood, who wanted young women sealed to them, and found that the girl preferred some handsome young man. The old priests generally got the girls, and many a young man was unsexed for refusing to give up his sweetheart at the request of an old and failing, but still sensual apostle or member of the Priesthood. As an illustration... Warren Snow was Bishop of the Church at Manti, San Pete County, Utah. He had several wives, but there was a fair, buxom young woman in the town that Snow wanted for a wife.... She thanked him for the honor offered, but told him she was then engaged to a young man, a member of the Church, and consequently could not marry the old priest.... He told her it was the will of God that she should marry him, and she must do so; that the young man could be got rid of, sent on a mission or dealt with in some way... that, in fact, a promise made to the young man was not binding, when she was informed that it was contrary to the wishes of the authorities.
“The girl continued obstinate.... the authorities called on the young man and directed him to give up the young woman. This he steadfastly refused to do.... He remained true to his intended, and said he would die before he would surrender his intended wife to the embraces of another.... The young man was ordered to go on a mission to some distant locality... But the mission was refused...
“It was then determined that the rebellious young man must be forced by harsh treatment to respect the advice and orders of the Priesthood. His fate was left to Bishop Snow for his decision. He decided that the young man should be castrated; Snow saying, ‘When that is done, he will not be liable to want the girl badly, and she will listen to reason when she knows that her lover is no longer a man.’
“It was then decided to call a meeting of the people who lived true to counsel, which was held in the school-house in Manti... The young man was there, and was again requested, ordered and threatened, to get him to surrender the young woman to Snow, but true to his plighted troth, he refused to consent to give up the girl. The lights were then put out. An attack was made on the young man. He was severely beaten, and then tied with his back down on a bench, when Bishop Snow took a bowie-knife, and performed the operation in a most brutal manner, and then took the portion severed from his victim and hung it up in the school-house on a nail, so that it could be seen by all who visited the house afterwards.
“The party then left the young man weltering in his blood, and in a lifeless condition. During the night he succeeded in releasing himself from his confinement, and dragged himself to some hay-stacks, where he lay until the next day, when he was discovered by his friends. The young man regained his health, but has been an idiot or quite lunatic ever since....
“After this outrage old Bishop Snow took occasion to get up a meeting... When all had assembled, the old man talked to the people about their duty to the Church, and their duty to obey counsel, and the dangers of refusal, and then publicly called attention to the mangled parts of the young man, that had been severed from his person, and stated that the deed had been done to teach the people that the counsel of the Priesthood must be obeyed. To make a long story short, I will say, the young woman was soon after forced into being sealed to Bishop Snow.
“Brigham Young... did nothing against Snow. He left him in charge as Bishop at Manti, and ordered the matter to be hushed up.” (Ibid., pages 284-286)
Mormons today would be appalled if such a dastardly deed was committed and would demand that the persons responsible be severely punished. Brigham Young, however, approved of many violent acts perpetrated by those he put in authority. Interestingly, D. Michael Quinn found documented evidence showing that President Young supported Bishop Warren S. Snow’s cruel mistreatment of the young man:
“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)
Next up: The Mountain Meadows Massacre, THe Circleville Massacre, The Bear River massacre
My history ???
You dont like the fact that the LORD Jesus Christ shed His blood on the Cross and died there to save me, fine...
You dont have to accept that...
I suppose it escapes you about the mormon church's history?
JS's adultery, thievery, stealing, assault on persons, assault on private property, destruction of private property, destruction of virtue (stealing wives and young girls for his harem), etc.
YES! Let's talk about church history, I welcome this discussion.
Gee it is your History not a myth or embellishment like many try to do to the LDS by taking things out of context.
Yep the gig is up no more secrets as you guys like to claim you are an open book... ha ha ha what hypocrits!
- - - - - - -
Resty, honey, I will take this slow and easy for you...
I will GLADLY discuss Church History with you until the Second Coming (it IS, after all, my area of specialization).
However, you make a mistake by claiming we are ‘hypocrits’ and apparently assume Christians either whitewash or ignore church history. That is not the case at all, there is no need.
Christians recognize (or they should) that ‘church history’ is a history of RELIGION (rites, rituals, debates, people, denominations). But, as Christians, our faith is NOT in our denominations. It is in Christ alone and HIS work on the Cross.
Any Christian church historian (such as myself) knows that ‘church history stinks’ (to quote Shawn McCraney). BIG DEAL. It really does not matter. Because church history has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING AT ALL on our faith. Nor should it. Our faith is in Christ alone.
The Mormons do not have that luxury, however. Why? Because of the foundational claims of Mormonism, meaning that ALL churches were ‘corrupt’ and ‘apostate’ and that Christ founded a denomination that Joseph Smith ‘restored’. That claim binds LDS church history to it’s doctrine. If there are lies and problems in LDS history, or the LDS LIE about their church history, then it, in a VERY TANGIBLE WAY, makes Smith’s claim of restoring the ‘true’ church suspect.
You see, the LDS cannot divorce themselves from their church history because they EQUATE Christ with the LDS church. The LDS denomination claims to be the ONLY TRUE WAY of getting to Heaven (the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation), therefore, the claims of Joseph Smith rise or fall upon the history of the organization he claims was restored.
So, LDS history is fair game while most Christians (all should) do NOT equate their salvation based upon the history of their denomination for their denomination does NOT, cannot, save them. Only the Blood of Christ can.
Please!
Come to this thread and help a SISTER in DISTRESS!!
Name one single thing I have ever taken out of context?