People do die for others all the time in order to try and save them physically, or to preserve their liberty or way of life. Some might say that is a form of blood atonement...but it has nothing to do with spiritual and eternal slavation.
Clearly in society, there are crimes that are committed, murder in particular, where our society demand the death penalty as justice for it...some could say perhaps that is blood atonement I suppose...but it really does not atone, it just renders justice.
Brigham Young did refer to various blood atonement ideas and thoughts he had, but what I just stated in the 1st paragraph about Christ is the doctrine and teaching of the church.
The Journal of Discourses is not recognized or taught of as scripture for the church. It is a historical journal of many of the speeches and lectures those men gave, but they of themselves do not represent the doctrine that the Church espouses or follows. People should check with Church offical representatives and spokesmen and ask as regards these things before they quote those speeches as somehow being the offical doctrine of the church...because more often than not, particularly when quoted to try and find the most outlandish things that those men said many years ago, and to find fault with or tear down the church, they simply are not.
But also in most of those cases, the people doing so are not really interested in what the Church actually teaches, they are more interested in trying to claim fault.
Well, people are imperfect. They say and do imperfect things. Even the best amongst us sometimes. It's why we all need Christ. But, anyone looking can generally find fault and broadcast it as such when they want to tear down or attack anyone else. Happens all the time in politics, business, religion, etc., etc.
As to this quote,
Which have nothing do do with becoming 'gods', for Jesus himself made it clear that there was only one TRUE God.
And yet Christ Himself, in the New Testament in John when praying to His Father for hHis disciples and those that would hear them, indicated that their oneness was exactly what He wanted for His disciples and those whom they teach ("I would that they would be one, even as we are one,")...clearly a oneness in unity and purpose and not that they would meld together into the same body and/or spirit.
This is shown in many other places, like when God the Father and His Son were seen by the martyr Stephen, God on the Throne and Christ on His right hand, next to Him, seperately.
God the Father spoke at Christ's Baptism, the Holy Ghost descended, and Christ was in the water...all three of them seperately at His Baptism, and again at the mount of transfiguaration.
Clearly, the Bible itself amply teaches what the oneness Christ refers to means...clear back to Genesis We can cover this ground again too...but it is clear we differ in interpretation on these points.
Which does not take away from, or lessen Christ's atonement for all of us and our utter reliance on Him and Him crucified.
Again, we can go back and forth (as has been done on other threads) about these docrinal differences, but again I say, Christ is my Savior, His atonement saves and nothing else. Without it we are all lost no matter what else we do.
And again, we should be allied together fighting for the preservation of our Republic on the fundamental moral principles taught by Christ in His gospel about true liberty and how we treat one another.
I am more than willing to do so and hope you and others can see your way clear to do so too. We can beat the amoral liberals, socialists and marxists who beset us, together and with God in Heaven's help, and we can defeat the tyranical fundamental Islamics and other enemies who would inslave us all.
Enemies would divide us and have us nit-pick, divide, and fight each other while they are at, or within the gates. I urge you to work together with good LDS people in uniting and defending our liberty. IMHO, that is what we should be focusing on at this critical stage of our history.
I have said this over and over...and will just leave it at that. Thanks for the conversation.
You seem to want to maximize some of the similarities mormons share with Christians when it comes to political matters, but then minimize the differences when it comes to theology.
Politics and the future of our republic will always take second place in importance when it comes to spiritual matters. That is because eternal lives are at stake. People can certainly spend time and energy advancing political causes, but many recognize the greater importance of rebuking false teaching.
Therefore, you shouldn’t be suprised that posters disagree with your theology on a RELIGION forum. Your calls for unity are weak and seem like an attempt to deflect arguements against Mormonism.
The church TODAY does not teach it - but the historic mormon church HAS taught it. For instance tenth Mormon prophet and president Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Man may commit certain grievous sins - according to his light and knowledge -that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone - so far as the power lies - for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:135,138 emphasis mine).
Your statement is found invalid Jeff.
Brigham Young did refer to various blood atonement ideas and thoughts he had, but what I just stated in the 1st paragraph about Christ is the doctrine and teaching of the church.
Misstatement again Jeff. Young didn't offer ideas and thoughts - he taught it as doctrine and was sustained by the membership. The fact that the teaching/doctrine was carried by even the 10th prophet shows otherwise.
The Journal of Discourses is not recognized or taught of as scripture for the church. It is a historical journal of many of the speeches and lectures those men gave, but they of themselves do not represent the doctrine that the Church espouses or follows. . . . . . But also in most of those cases, the people doing so are not really interested in what the Church actually teaches, they are more interested in trying to claim fault.
Oh really - plausible deniability. Yet your church teaches-
Words of Our Living Prophets
In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).
You words read hollow Jeff. It isn't hard to go back and read the passages in context and see that the citations are fully supported. It is clear that the church TAUGHT these things as stated in your church's "Gospel Principles". Further they are commanded to teach only true and faithful doctrine at all times.
Well, people are imperfect. They say and do imperfect things. Even the best amongst us sometimes. It's why we all need Christ. But, anyone looking can generally find fault and broadcast it as such when they want to tear down or attack anyone else.
Yet that is exactly what mormonism has attempted since its inception. Yet is it tearing down to expose actual historical doctrinal teachings of your prophets and apostles that today have fallen into disfavor? Is that the excuse for polygamy? Is that the excuse for allowing blacks the priesthood?
And yet Christ Himself, in the New Testament in John when praying to His Father for hHis disciples and those that would hear them, indicated that their oneness was exactly what He wanted for His disciples and those whom they teach ("I would that they would be one, even as we are one,")...clearly a oneness in unity and purpose and not that they would meld together into the same body and/or spirit.
LOL, unity of purpose does not repudiate the doctrine of the Trinity Jeff - as it is a component of it as well. Best you start at the beginning of John - that places the whole book into context.
This is shown in many other places, like when God the Father and His Son were seen by the martyr Stephen, God on the Throne and Christ on His right hand, next to Him, seperately.
Show me specifically that Stephen saw a God of flesh and bone? No, he saw the doxa of God and the relating to the 'right hand' is positional not literal.
God the Father spoke at Christ's Baptism, the Holy Ghost descended, and Christ was in the water...all three of them seperately at His Baptism, and again at the mount of transfiguaration.
Once again, you fail at the scriptures. The Trinity also embraces the three fold expression at the baptism. You sound like your definition is typical mormon misrepresentation of the Trinity as modalism. Not surprising, can't defeat the real thing, misrepresent it. BTW, re read the transfiguration passages again.
Clearly, the Bible itself amply teaches what the oneness Christ refers to means...clear back to Genesis We can cover this ground again too...but it is clear we differ in interpretation on these points.
In your case - misinterpretation.
Which does not take away from, or lessen Christ's atonement for all of us and our utter reliance on Him and Him crucified.
Sorry, mormonism takes away because is lessens the atonement. It is irrefutable that mormonism teaches the atonement doesn't cover all sin - and that mormons are required to live sinless, perfect lives before that atonement can be available. BTW, mormons reject the cross and what it stands for.
We can beat the amoral liberals, socialists and marxists who beset us, together and with God in Heaven's help, and we can defeat the tyranical fundamental Islamics and other enemies who would inslave us all.
Sorry, my God is not the god of mormonism - so we cannot stand on that common appeal. And why join with mormonism - it has produced those enemies of the country like rommney and reid.
Lurkers, pay attention as to how Mormons engage in apologetics. They not only disrespect and scoff at their own "prophets" and General Authorities, they utterly diss these very resources produced by them -- and then diss even more statements made about these resources spoken by other General Authorities, etc.
Let's take the Mormon published Journal of Discourses, for example -- since Jeff Head dissed these documents on this thread:
Who authorized Watt to record the Journal of Discourses? (Brigham Young)
Who ranks highest in the Mormon church to carry out what he assigns? (The "prophet")
Who ranks higher, a grassroots Mormon like Jeff Head -- or an Lds "apostle"? What did Lds apostle Franklin D. Richards in the Journal of Discourses (JoD) preface of vol. 2 reference the JoD as?
The Second Volume of the Journal of Discources needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth.
Who ranks higher Jeff Head or a member of the First Presidency who served in such a role to four different Lds “prophets?” What did a member reference the JoD as?
The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press..." (President George Q. Cannon, JoD, preface, Vol. 8)
What about within Jeff's lifetime? What have Lds leaders said about the JoD?
Well, on March 21, 1963, the Deseret News -- owned and published by the OFFICIAL Mormon church -- ran an ad from Lds church leadership about the JoD. The ad read: Every Latter-day Saint should take this opportunity of owning the written words of remarkable teachings from the LDS pulpit. To the clear and vigorous exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration."
What more can you get Jeff? Here church leaders were sqawking that the JoD is...
..."from the LDS pulpit..."
...exposes "Latter-day Saint doctrine" clearly & vigorously...
...presented with "divine inspiration...authority" -- and there's no mistake ("unmistakable" about that)
So, now you're saying, "Lds leaders, you're mistaken, after all?"
Three months after that ad appeared in the Deseret News, the assistant manager of the DesNews, Axel J. Andresen, wrote a letter about the JoD to a Mr. H.C. Combes dated June 12, 1963. In a few excerpts from that letter, Mr. Andresen said:
"...the 26 volumes of the 'JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES,'...If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about. I am sure that the individual is not anyone in authority -- certainly not among the General Authorities...May we also assure you that Deseret Book Company, being the only Church-owned book store, would not distribute literature on the Church, particularly anything as important as the Discourses of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church, without the approval of the Church..."
Jeff, this DesNews Asst Mgr says before you even opened your mouth on this subject, that you "know not what" you "are talking about."
Pretty sad for somebody like yourself who has held leadership positions in the Mormon church.
When we have Jeff telling us that...
...official publishings of the Mormon church...
...officially plugged by the LATER Mormon church publishing house (DesNews)...
...as well as officially plugged by Lds payroll people and gen authorities...
...aren't "official" after all...
...all I can say, Jeff...
...is what you're saying "officially" so????
The Journal of Discourses is not recognized or taught of as scripture for the church. It is a historical journal of many of the speeches and lectures those men gave, but they of themselves do not represent the doctrine that the Church espouses or follows. People should check with Church offical representatives and spokesmen and ask as regards these things before they quote those speeches as somehow being the offical doctrine of the church...because more often than not, particularly when quoted to try and find the most outlandish things that those men said many years ago, and to find fault with or tear down the church, they simply are not.
I recall a few threads where FREEPERS Delacoert and Ejones22 made some rather interesting observations when they'd run across statements quite similar to what Jeff Head offered up here.
Delacoert:
Ya' don't say. LOL Has anyone ever noticed that most endearing Mormon quality of denying that this or that teaching is doctrine, when it is clear to everyone that IS doctrine?
ALL: Well, it's tough to beat to that excellent size-up provided by Delacoert. I think my all-time "fave" cut-to-the-chase summary of this common line of Mormon thinking we've seen over the FREEPER years was the following contribution from Ejonesie22...:
The 'classic' assessment from Ejones:
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are consider unofficial by said officials. At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially. This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness. Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial. This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used here by haters cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site else where. Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially. I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there. As I said the haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all crystal clear.... Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2573705/posts Post #24
(Thanks again Ejones!...we need those fine-print navigators out there! ...and thanks, Jeff...we need cont'd Lds examples like what's you've provided on this thread to see how Mormons have learned to deflect the consequences of their leaders' words!)
How often have we seen posts through the years where somebody cites a previous sermon or Journal of Discourses reference by an LDS “prophet” or general authority only to be told, “Ya know, that’s not LDS canon!” or “You can’t hold an LDS “prophet” or “apostle” accountable for every obscure spiritual message he gives in public, can you?”
Whenever a Mormon would offer up such an explanation, well, how befuddled could they leave readers? Here, LDS have lectured us left & right about the need for living revelators & seers & "prophets" & "apostles" via general conference messages, Ensign mag articles, sermons, teachings, writings, etc. (So tell us again why it’s our issue if Mormons consider what any general authority—dead or alive—has voiced publicly to either be dismissed or deemed obscure?
ALL: The lesson to be learned here? ANYthing ANY Mormon general authority has said can be readily dismissed. If one Lds "prophet" has said "No blacks allowed." Well, so what? A later Lds "prophet" just updates the teaching; reverses it, and moves on.
* Polygamy as a Book of Mormon "abomination" in the Book of Jacob, 1830? (Yup)
* Joseph Smith & D&C 132 institutionalizing it? (Yup)
* A manifesto frowning upon it (1890?) (Yup)
* McConkie announcing the Mormon Jesus will rebound polygamy into the earthly mix? (1966) (Yup)
* Lds leaders tossing McConkie's book "Mormon Doctrine" in the waste bin of republishing? (2010) (Yup)
* Polygamy going on near Kolob right now, per Mormonism? (Yup)
My advice? Since Jeff Head would seemingly quite readily toss parts of McConkie's prophecies into the waste bin -- as his leaders have modeled for him -- why not just do the same thing with ALL what Mormon leaders have prophesied through the years???!!!!
As Delacoert pointed out, I think it’s downright disingenuous to hype up tone & content-wise to…
IN ONE BREATH…
“We’re the only church on earth that has a living prophet who speaks for God on all things...and we are the living church which has restored the 12 apostles”…
AND THEN IN THE NEXT BREATH TELL US…
“Yeah, we know all about that ‘speaking for God’ thing but you know…
(a)…”Nobody’s perfect…” [Something similar to this statement has already been uttered by Jeff Head several times on this thread]
(b) …”these guys engage in countless public speculations…”
(c) …”we were hoping you wouldn’t notice all that much of what they’ve had to say ‘cause we assigned much of it to that round file over there we call the ‘obscurity bucket…’
(d) …”and, besides, nobody knows for certain if what they say has been recorded accurately…these are things that were just reported to have been said at one time or another…I mean, come on, they’re only God’s living prophets, presidents, revelators, seers, apostles & representatives on earth…What? Do you expect us to have an accurate stenographer on hand to at least 100% accurately report what they’ve said in sermons & general conferences?”