Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:51:33 AM EDT
September 16

1845 Mormons commit an act of "blood atonement"

Phineas Wilcox is stabbed to death by fellow Mormons in Nauvoo, Illinois, because he is believed to be a Christian spy. Wilcox was one of the first victims of "blood atonement," an old Mormon doctrine conceived of by Brigham Young that taught that murder is sometimes necessary in order to save a sinful soul.

The murder of Wilcox reflected the serious and often violent conflict between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the surrounding communities. Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon Church in 1830, had been living with his followers in Missouri, where they had various conflicts with locals, including an armed skirmish with the state militia. In 1838, Governor Lilburn Boggs, who was wounded four years later by an unidentified sniper at his home, signed a military order directing that the Mormons be expelled or exterminated: "The Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good."

Smith and the Mormons fled across the Mississippi to Nauvoo, Illinois, which quickly became the second most populous town in the state. But there were conflicts and tensions in Nauvoo as well. When a local newspaper printed editorials claiming that the religious leader was a fraud, Smith sent a group of followers to destroy the newspaper office. He was then arrested and sent to jail, where a lynch mob tracked him down and killed him.

Brigham Young, who quickly took command of the church and its followers, tried to stifle any dissent and banish his rivals. The killing of Phineas Wilcox was part of his consolidation of power. Tensions with other communities continued to escalate, and, a year later, over 2,000 armed anti-Mormons marched on Nauvoo. Young decided that it no longer was wise to stay in the area. He led his flock west and settled in the Salt Lake Valley, where he and his followers would become instrumental in founding the state of Utah.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:55:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ring:
September 16

1845 Mormons commit an act of "blood atonement"

Phineas Wilcox is stabbed to death by fellow Mormons in Nauvoo, Illinois, because he is believed to be a Christian spy. Wilcox was one of the first victims of "blood atonement," an old Mormon doctrine conceived of by Brigham Young that taught that murder is sometimes necessary in order to save a sinful soul.

The murder of Wilcox reflected the serious and often violent conflict between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the surrounding communities. Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon Church in 1830, had been living with his followers in Missouri, where they had various conflicts with locals, including an armed skirmish with the state militia. In 1838, Governor Lilburn Boggs, who was wounded four years later by an unidentified sniper at his home, signed a military order directing that the Mormons be expelled or exterminated: "The Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good."

Smith and the Mormons fled across the Mississippi to Nauvoo, Illinois, which quickly became the second most populous town in the state. But there were conflicts and tensions in Nauvoo as well. When a local newspaper printed editorials claiming that the religious leader was a fraud, Smith sent a group of followers to destroy the newspaper office. He was then arrested and sent to jail, where a lynch mob tracked him down and killed him.

Brigham Young, who quickly took command of the church and its followers, tried to stifle any dissent and banish his rivals. The killing of Phineas Wilcox was part of his consolidation of power. Tensions with other communities continued to escalate, and, a year later, over 2,000 armed anti-Mormons marched on Nauvoo. Young decided that it no longer was wise to stay in the area. He led his flock west and settled in the Salt Lake Valley, where he and his followers would become instrumental in founding the state of Utah.



WOW.....
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:55:10 AM EDT
IBTL
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:57:37 AM EDT
Hello! and welcome to 160 YEARS ago...

And the point of this post was? (other than to stir religeous bashing in a forum other than the Religeon Forum).
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:57:48 AM EDT
I have read some whackey stories about those darn mormons. One guy that I went to HS with recently converted from scientology to mormnonism. He had been pumping his cousin for a while there too. Weird people I say.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 9:01:54 AM EDT
I'd never met a mormon until just a few years ago.

The few mormon individuals that I have become familiar with, are perhaps some of the most upstanding, forthright, and solid people I have ever known.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 9:04:05 AM EDT
They made the desert flower. They built from nothing. I respect the Mormons.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 9:24:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
The few mormon individuals that I have become familiar with, are perhaps some of the most upstanding, forthright, and solid people I have ever known.



+1 on that. The Mormons I know are all outstanding individuals.

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 9:26:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
I'd never met a mormon until just a few years ago.

The few mormon individuals that I have become familiar with, are perhaps some of the most upstanding, forthright, and solid people I have ever known.



Now don't go lettin' the truth and your personal experiences cloud your judgement. You're supposed to be a good little boy and rally round the flag of bigotry and name-calling. After all, isn't that what much of the modern "Christian" movement is all about? (It is if my personal experiences are any indicator.) Now stop distracting these "good" Christians from backstabbing and putting-down other sects, denominations, and religions. They're about the "Lord's" business don'tchya know...
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:34:07 AM EDT
Ring,

I will answer your question if it is possible to do so before this thread gets locked. Please allow me a moment to gather my thoughts.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:41:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 11:43:19 AM EDT by Shane333]
Blood atonement is one of the least taught principles of the LDS faith...for good reason. Blood atonement is a principle that very specifically has to do with murderers (a relatively small portion of the population).

Brief summary:
In cases of cold-blooded murder the sin is so severe that the life (referred to as "blood") of the murderer is required as part of his/her personal repentence. Simply saying, "sorry," isn't enough for the atonement of Christ to have effect on such a murderer.

More simply put: the LDS Church believes in Capital Punishment for the crime of cold blooded murder.

Blood Atonement has nothing to do with hunting down a "traitor of the faith" and murdering him. Any Mormon who applies it that way seriously misunderstands his own faith and is on the fast track for excommunication and probably prison time too.

Edited to add: The LDS Church doesn't endorse personally carrying out blood atonement. It is to be done in accordance with due process of the law.

Give me a few minutes and I'll look for doctrinal sources for this.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:56:43 AM EDT
Hey! I stand partially corrected.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in 1978, Bruce R. McConkie, acting under the direction of Spencer W. Kimball and the First Presidency, repudiated the blood atonement doctrine:


"You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early church leaders have said and written about this doctrine and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the Church today.

"If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is Yes. 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." (Letter from Bruce R. McConkie to Thomas B. McAffee, October 18, 1978.)
In McConkie's letter, he attempted to reconcile this repudiation with his earlier statements and those of Brigham Young by suggesting that the doctrine could, in fact, be valid, but only in a pure theocracy. He stated:


"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." (Letter from Bruce R. McConkie to Thomas B. McAffee, October 18, 1978.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, according to official LDS Doctrine, Blood Atonement could only function in a theocracy such as existed in the day of Moses. Since we do not live in a theocracy, Blood Atonement is a moot principle.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:03:09 PM EDT
I admire anyone who can give a serious answer to a question asked in jest.

<--agrees that this was a trolling attempt.


Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:17:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
I admire anyone who can give a serious answer to a question asked in jest.

<--agrees that this was a trolling attempt.






arowneragain -- There have been times when you and I were on opposing sides of an issue, but your classy post here is noted by me. Shane did do a great job (much better than my smart-alec reply) at acting like a Christian in this thread. Good on him and good on you.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:05:17 PM EDT
Thanks for the kind remarks.

I knew the original post was meant as more of a jab below the belt. I just figured that I should answer it before it became something worse. Today's ugly rumor can become tomorrow's perceived reality.

Either way, no harm done and an obscure question has been answered.

As to Phineas Wilcox, if someone really did murder a man named Phineas Wilcox, I hope the murderer was brought to justice.

As for Brigham Young, he didn't need to have anyone killed to "consolidate power". Otherwise Sidney Rigdon would have been killed. We know that Sidney Rigdon, who wanted to lead the LDS Church, went his own way with other dissenters and created a different church.

Interestingly enough, Governor Boggs really did enact the "Extermination Order" and it wasn't until 1976 that this order was rescinded. That is to say that until 1976 it was legal to murder members of the LDS Church in Missouri.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:30:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 2:37:23 PM EDT by Red_Label]

Originally Posted By Shane333:
Interestingly enough, Governor Boggs really did enact the "Extermination Order" and it wasn't until 1976 that this order was rescinded. That is to say that until 1976 it was legal to murder members of the LDS Church in Missouri.



No doubt some who think of themselves as religious folk would've loved to take him up on that order. "Why can't we all just get along?"


ETA: Wanting to exterminate someone soley because of their faith is exactly what guys like Hitler, Ceasar, and others of their ilk practiced. Not good company. I am honestly HAPPY to share the world with Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Buddists, etc. There are SO many good people in all religions. And unfortunately, not-so-good in all religions. I like to use the term "Christian" here not because of a disdain for REAL Christians. But one for those who use his name while breaking every commandment that Christ gave. We ALL fall short, but loving our fellow man is NOT a suggestion, it is a COMMANDMENT. (And hey, it's something that I have to work on too.)
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:51:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Label:

Originally Posted By Shane333:
Interestingly enough, Governor Boggs really did enact the "Extermination Order" and it wasn't until 1976 that this order was rescinded. That is to say that until 1976 it was legal to murder members of the LDS Church in Missouri.



No doubt some who think of themselves as religious folk would've loved to take him up on that order. "Why can't we all just get along?"


ETA: Wanting to exterminate someone soley because of their faith is exactly what guys like Hitler, Ceasar, and others of their ilk practiced. Not good company.



Looking at the situation from a historical viewpoint helps significantly in understanding what was going on in the build-up to the Civil War. Even before it's admission in 1821, Missouri was a hotspot of political wrangling regarding the issue of slavery. Missouri was the only northern state to officially recognize slavery as a legal institution when it was admitted to the union.

Then, in the midst of this severe political turmoil, you have a unique community move into the region. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was abolitionist in its principles. This didn't sit well at all with many of the existing population. What more, the "Mormon" community was growing steadily and becoming a serious political force because of its numbers.

Naturally, in this environment of paranoia, political strife, and religious ferver, the rumors began to fly. Of course the most outrageous rumors would be the first to be believed and before you know it you have mob activity.

I could go on, but you get the idea.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:56:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Label:

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
I'd never met a mormon until just a few years ago.

The few mormon individuals that I have become familiar with, are perhaps some of the most upstanding, forthright, and solid people I have ever known.



Now don't go lettin' the truth and your personal experiences cloud your judgement. You're supposed to be a good little boy and rally round the flag of bigotry and name-calling. After all, isn't that what much of the modern "Christian" movement is all about? (It is if my personal experiences are any indicator.) Now stop distracting these "good" Christians from backstabbing and putting-down other sects, denominations, and religions. They're about the "Lord's" business don'tchya know...



My neighbor is a Mormon (the whole family is) and he's a good neighbor and a good family man as far as I can tell. We have had brief discussions on preparedness and faith. I respect his choice of faith (Mormon) and he respects mine (Deist).
He seems like a stand up guy and he's a freedom-loving person.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 5:08:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:58:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
I'm not sure if this thread started in GD or in here, but since the members from the RF have managed to turn this thread into a civil discussion, I'll leave it unlocked.


Thanks to everyone who showed good judgement here.



Gawwwleee, VA! Ain't we allowed to have us some fun? Why we gots to always be so civil? Why can't we run an' git our torches and tar and feathers and have usselves a reel guud harry-tick bar-bee-que!
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:47:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ring:
September 16

1845 Mormons commit an act of "blood atonement"

Phineas Wilcox is stabbed to death by fellow Mormons in Nauvoo, Illinois, because he is believed to be a Christian spy. Wilcox was one of the first victims of "blood atonement," an old Mormon doctrine conceived of by Brigham Young that taught that murder is sometimes necessary in order to save a sinful soul.

The murder of Wilcox reflected the serious and often violent conflict between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the surrounding communities. Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon Church in 1830, had been living with his followers in Missouri, where they had various conflicts with locals, including an armed skirmish with the state militia. In 1838, Governor Lilburn Boggs, who was wounded four years later by an unidentified sniper at his home, signed a military order directing that the Mormons be expelled or exterminated: "The Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good."

Smith and the Mormons fled across the Mississippi to Nauvoo, Illinois, which quickly became the second most populous town in the state. But there were conflicts and tensions in Nauvoo as well. When a local newspaper printed editorials claiming that the religious leader was a fraud, Smith sent a group of followers to destroy the newspaper office. He was then arrested and sent to jail, where a lynch mob tracked him down and killed him.

Brigham Young, who quickly took command of the church and its followers, tried to stifle any dissent and banish his rivals. The killing of Phineas Wilcox was part of his consolidation of power. Tensions with other communities continued to escalate, and, a year later, over 2,000 armed anti-Mormons marched on Nauvoo. Young decided that it no longer was wise to stay in the area. He led his flock west and settled in the Salt Lake Valley, where he and his followers would become instrumental in founding the state of Utah.



There are a few documented incidents of what is called "blood attonement", the most egregious of which is the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Mormon theologians and historians don't talk about it much.

Most Mormons don't even know about it.

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:19:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
Blood atonement is one of the least taught principles of the LDS faith...for good reason. Blood atonement is a principle that very specifically has to do with murderers (a relatively small portion of the population).

Brief summary:
In cases of cold-blooded murder the sin is so severe that the life (referred to as "blood") of the murderer is required as part of his/her personal repentence. Simply saying, "sorry," isn't enough for the atonement of Christ to have effect on such a murderer.

More simply put: the LDS Church believes in Capital Punishment for the crime of cold blooded murder.

Blood Atonement has nothing to do with hunting down a "traitor of the faith" and murdering him. Any Mormon who applies it that way seriously misunderstands his own faith and is on the fast track for excommunication and probably prison time too.

Edited to add: The LDS Church doesn't endorse personally carrying out blood atonement. It is to be done in accordance with due process of the law.

Give me a few minutes and I'll look for doctrinal sources for this.




How about this one?

    Exo 21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.


Sounds fair to me.

Shok
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:25:41 AM EDT
Was this doctrine the reason for the option of firing squad in capital punishment in Utah?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:20:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Was this doctrine the reason for the option of firing squad in capital punishment in Utah?



There is a good chance that it was a factor due to common interpretations by the general public.

The interesting thing about this topic is that it isn't taught from the pulpit and isn't considered cannonized scripture by the LDS Church. It was an obscure principle mentioned by Brigham Young that was touched on by Joseph Fielding Smith in his writings and again touched on by Bruce R. McConkie.

It's longevity in discussions is probably more due to morbid curiosity than anything else, especially because it was never practiced by the Church. Contrary to the accusations of agitators and the ill informed, the Mountain Meadows Massacre was the result of paranoia and greed within an isolated community, not some doctrine or principle.

In 1857, due to accusations that the Utah Territory was suceeding from the Union, the US government declared war on the Utah Territory and sent an army to conquer the LDS population. I personally find this very ironic, since the Mormons wanted to be part of the Union and even submitted a proposal to add the state of "Deseret" to the Union. Of course, any time an outrageous accusation is made against Mormons, verifiable facts were never required before action was taken to punish them, so this case is no surprise. I also find it interesting that the main reason that President Buchanan declared war on the Utah Territory primarily based on false witness from Judge William W. Drummond and Judges George P. Stiles and John F. Kinney.

Judges bearing false witness?!!! Who'd have thought.

Anyway, naturally there was considerable panic and paranoia in the population of the Utah Territory. This was the atmosphere that existed when a wagon train of pioneers from Arkansas passed through the territory about 300 miles south of Salt Lake City. John D Lee, a local community leader (and sadly trusted as a local Bishop) decided to use the situation for his personal gain. Lee convinced many in the local Mountain Meadows community, along with nearby indians, to attack and massacre the wagon train. The only ones spared were the youngest children, probably to prevent any reliable witnesses to the event from surviving.

Lee was later convicted and executed for his crimes. Unfortunately, most of the rest were simply looked over, probably due to sympathies from their peers (considering the unjust war declared on the Mormons and the many atrocities they suffered at the hands of their "Christian" neighbors in Illinois, Missouri, and New York).

As for the idea of "Blood Atonement", it is ridiculous and illogical to even make the accusation because the wagon train was from Arkansas. The Saints had no qualms with people from Arkansas. There were a handful from Missouri in the wagon train, but it is unlikely that the local population would have known that. What more, the entire idea of "Blood Atonement" was for people guilty of murder to be executed with due process of the law in a theocracy. Even if you leave out the, "in a theocracy," part, there still would be no grounds for the massacre in any "Blood Atonement" context.

Oh well, no matter the facts, there will always be people anxious to accuse the "Mormons" of some unproven rumor they've read or heard.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:48:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 7:57:41 AM EDT by criley]
Cleansing Sacrifice and Blood Atonement


Rick Branch


As America welcomed 1990, it was shocked to its very core by the discovery of the brutal murder of the Avery family in Kirtland, Ohio, by a self-proclaimed prophet, turned madman.

Jeffrey Lundgren, the leader of The Family, an RLDS offshoot, was eventually arrested and charged with "five counts of aggravated murder" (The Kansas City Times, January 6, 1990, p. A-1).

According to Kirtland, Ohio Police Chief, Dennis Yarborough, "The (Avery) family members, including a 7-year-old girl, were shot in the belief the cult would be cleansed by the sacrifice and go on to find a golden sword in the wilderness of West Virginia..." (Ibid; emphasis mine).

The idea of a cleansing sacrifice can be traced back to the early history of Mormonism. Brigham Young, the successor to Joseph Smith, taught a very similar doctrine called Blood Atonement.

Young explained, "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or 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....

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.

"I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit," (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54; emphasis mine).

In an earlier sermon, Brigham Young had stated, "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;..." (Ibid, Vol. 3, p. 247).

What are these "sins" that men commit which require their own blood to be shed? One of these, according to Brigham Young, was Apostasy.

In 1853, Young described in detail to his audience, a dream, in which he cut the throats of two men and threatened to behead them. He then proceeded to expound his Blood Atonement doctrine with, "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here (in Utah), I will unsheathe my bowie knife, and conquer or die," (Ibid, Vol. 1, p. 83; parenthesis added).

His listeners joined in the vote to do so, with "All hands up." Young then concluded by saying, "Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work," (Ibid; emphasis mine).

Four years later, Young was still teaching his unscriptural brand of Blood Atonement salvation. "This is loving our neighbors as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.

"Any of you who understand the principle of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood... would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind," (Ibid, Vol. 4, p. 220).


It may be correctly observed that Lundgren was never a member of the LDS Church, and thus, never a follower of Brigham Young. Rather, being an offshoot of the RLDS cult, Lundgren would trace his roots back to Joseph Smith III, Joseph Smith Jr.'s son, and the second prophet of the RLDS group.

Though not a direct follower of Young, Lundgren's ideas on apostasy had many similarities.

According to Law Enforcement authorities, Lundgren's cleansing list originally contain¬ed ten names marked for death, rather than just the five Averys.

"The Averys were chosen because they did not live in a commune with the other members and were not believed to be as devout....

"According to a police press release, the Patricks were designated as expendable because they lacked faith in Lundgren," (The Kansas City Times, Jan. 6, 1990, p. A-14).

Regardless of whether or not Lundgren took his doctrine of a cleansing sacrifice from Brig¬ham Young's Blood Atonement teaching, it is an interesting parallel.

One final note, the LDS, RLDS and Lundgren all trace their heritage back to Joseph Smith Jr., who began his church on April 6, 1830. It was a cousin of Joseph's wife Emma, who made a very revealing observation about Joseph's practice of sacrifice.

In speaking of the translation of the ?Book of Mormonœ, Emma Smith's cousin "...reported that Smith `translated the book of Mormon by means of the same peep stone, and under the same inspiration that directed his enchantments and dog sacrifices; it was all by the same spirit,'" (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Dr. D. Michael Quinn, p. 144; emphasis mine).

© Copyright 2000 Watchman Fellowship, Inc.. All rights reserved.


******

Religions change with the whims of men. Today, Young's (who was a church prophet, and supposedly spoke with the authority of God) doctrine of blood atonement is not very popular. So, it undergoes evolution.

One may observe the same thing in other religions. Catholicism, for instance, no longer publicly promotes the doctrine of indulgences. Many debate purgatory, or the need to confess sins to priests.

It is all about maintaining numbers and money.

The religion changes to remain "marketable."

But God does not change. His word does not change. The plan of salvation does not change.

The Lord Jesus Christ (of the Holy Bible - not the differing Jesuses of men's religions) died for our sins, was buried and rose again from the dead.

HE had the power to lay down His life for our sins - He had the power to take that life up again - He has the power to forgive men's sins.

The false Jesus of ANY religion cannot.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:53:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By criley:
Cleansing Sacrifice and Blood Atonement


Rick Branch


As America welcomed 1990, it was shocked to its very core by the discovery of the brutal murder of the Avery family in Kirtland, Ohio, by a self-proclaimed prophet, turned madman.


Jeffrey Lundgren, the leader of The Family, an RLDS offshoot, was eventually arrested and charged with "five counts of aggravated murder" (The Kansas City Times, January 6, 1990, p. A-1).





Interesting article. It's about the leader of an organization twice removed from the LDS Church:

The Family = offshoot from the RLDS Church and RLDS Church = offshoot from the LDS Church.

Either way, it has no bearing on official "Mormon" doctrine.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:59:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By criley:
Cleansing Sacrifice and Blood Atonement


Rick Branch


As America welcomed 1990, it was shocked to its very core by the discovery of the brutal murder of the Avery family in Kirtland, Ohio, by a self-proclaimed prophet, turned madman.


Jeffrey Lundgren, the leader of The Family, an RLDS offshoot, was eventually arrested and charged with "five counts of aggravated murder" (The Kansas City Times, January 6, 1990, p. A-1).





Interesting article. It's about the leader of an organization twice removed from the LDS Church:

The Family = offshoot from the RLDS Church and RLDS Church = offshoot from the LDS Church.

Either way, it has no bearing on official "Mormon" doctrine.





You have got to be kidding.

What LUNDGREN said or did has noting to do with it....

But what YOUNG said, as PROPHET OF THE CHURCH certainly DOES.

Typical myopia of those who follow religion.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:54:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By criley:

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By criley:
Cleansing Sacrifice and Blood Atonement


Rick Branch


As America welcomed 1990, it was shocked to its very core by the discovery of the brutal murder of the Avery family in Kirtland, Ohio, by a self-proclaimed prophet, turned madman.


Jeffrey Lundgren, the leader of The Family, an RLDS offshoot, was eventually arrested and charged with "five counts of aggravated murder" (The Kansas City Times, January 6, 1990, p. A-1).





Interesting article. It's about the leader of an organization twice removed from the LDS Church:

The Family = offshoot from the RLDS Church and RLDS Church = offshoot from the LDS Church.

Either way, it has no bearing on official "Mormon" doctrine.





You have got to be kidding.

What LUNDGREN said or did has noting to do with it....

But what YOUNG said, as PROPHET OF THE CHURCH certainly DOES.

Typical myopia of those who follow religion.



You're grasping at straws, Criley.

Both Catholics and Protestants have roots that go back to the Nicean Creed, but you can't take a Protestant doctrine and automatically call it a Catholic doctrine.

If you want to troll, please take it somewhere else. Neither you nor Lundgren are qualified to dictate what is canonized LDS doctrine, even if you can quote some obscure comment made by Brigham Young.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 9:08:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By criley:

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By criley:
Cleansing Sacrifice and Blood Atonement


Rick Branch


As America welcomed 1990, it was shocked to its very core by the discovery of the brutal murder of the Avery family in Kirtland, Ohio, by a self-proclaimed prophet, turned madman.


Jeffrey Lundgren, the leader of The Family, an RLDS offshoot, was eventually arrested and charged with "five counts of aggravated murder" (The Kansas City Times, January 6, 1990, p. A-1).





Interesting article. It's about the leader of an organization twice removed from the LDS Church:

The Family = offshoot from the RLDS Church and RLDS Church = offshoot from the LDS Church.

Either way, it has no bearing on official "Mormon" doctrine.





You have got to be kidding.

What LUNDGREN said or did has noting to do with it....

But what YOUNG said, as PROPHET OF THE CHURCH certainly DOES.

Typical myopia of those who follow religion.



You're grasping at straws, Criley.

Both Catholics and Protestants have roots that go back to the Nicean Creed, but you can't take a Protestant doctrine and automatically call it a Catholic doctrine.

If you want to troll, please take it somewhere else. Neither you nor Lundgren are qualified to dictate what is canonized LDS doctrine, even if you can quote some obscure comment made by Brigham Young.




Brigham Young COULD and DID dictate Mormon doctrine.

And the JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES is not "some obscure comment made by Brigham Young."

I am no troll. But you are a transparent apologist for a man-made religion. And when the TRUTH detracts from your religion, you simply attack the one who mentions the truth.

SOP.

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 9:40:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By criley:
...you are a transparent apologist for a man-made religion....





As I already indicated previously in this thread, and what you've obviously intentionally overlooked, is the fact that more recent LDS Church leadership has already clarified the concept. Unless you can find something more recent than 1978, all your claims are null, void, and every other way moot.

As previously noted, you aren't in a position to dictate LDS Church doctrine, even if you found something Brigham Young said.

You can respond if you want, Criley, but I'm done responding to your trollings. Goodbye, and good riddence for all I care.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 10:55:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 11:05:17 AM EDT by criley]

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By criley:
...you are a transparent apologist for a man-made religion....





As I already indicated previously in this thread, and what you've obviously intentionally overlooked, is the fact that more recent LDS Church leadership has already clarified the concept. Unless you can find something more recent than 1978, all your claims are null, void, and every other way moot.

As previously noted, you aren't in a position to dictate LDS Church doctrine, even if you found something Brigham Young said.

You can respond if you want, Criley, but I'm done responding to your trollings. Goodbye, and good riddence for all I care.



Thanks for your permission to respond.

You know, instead of being so angry with me you ought to be angry at Mormonism.

I am not speaking for the "church." Never claimed to.

BUT BRIGHAM YOUNG WAS speaking for the "church."

You say modern leaders "clarified the concept." What a joke. What double-talk. How feeble. How lame.

Let's see ..... BRIGHAM YOUNG. By your reasoning he is some light weight in the Mormon religion. And since he said some things (AS THE SECOND PROPHET of the church, by the way) that are not too palatable today people should simply dismiss them.

Sorry, TRUTH doesn't WORK that way.

Truth is immutable. Truth is unchanging.

And the truth is, Mormonism is a man-made religion subject to the whims of men. And as soon as some other 'church" doctrines become unpalatable, the leaders of the religion will change those as well.

Shifting sand. Wise men do not build thereon.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 11:17:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 11:21:11 AM EDT by criley]
A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the


Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, September 21, 1856.


Journal of Discourses 4:51

Young in black, with my comments in red.

Will you spend your lives to obtain a seat in the kingdom of God, or will you lie down and sleep, and go down to hell?

All religions require MEN'S WORKS to obtain righteousness. Mormonism is just another religion.

I want all the people to say what they will do, and I know that God wishes all His servants, all His faithful sons and daughters, the men and the women that inhabit this city, to repent of their wickedness, or we will cut them off.

Here is a self-righteous sinner, who is going to kill other sinners for being .... sinners.

I could give you a logical reason for all the transgressions in this world, for all that are committed in this probationary state, and especially for those committed by men.

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or 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 as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

And so it is made clear that Mormonism is anything BUT CHRISTIAN. According to Mormonism, and contrary to the word of God, the shed blood of Jesus Christ is NOT sufficient to cleanse sinners.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them."

So it is clear that what Young said IS the DOCTRINE of the Mormon church.

Those words are CLEAR and they are undeniable. But now they are not so convenient to the Mormon church. So now they discount them, and try to explain them away.


Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:20:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 12:21:47 PM EDT by scuba_ed]

Originally Posted By criley:
Cleansing Sacrifice and Blood Atonement


Rick Branch


As America welcomed 1990, it was shocked to its very core by the discovery of the brutal murder of the Avery family in Kirtland, Ohio, by a self-proclaimed prophet, turned madman.

Jeffrey Lundgren, the leader of The Family, an RLDS offshoot, was eventually arrested and charged with "five counts of aggravated murder" (The Kansas City Times, January 6, 1990, p. A-1).

According to Kirtland, Ohio Police Chief, Dennis Yarborough, "The (Avery) family members, including a 7-year-old girl, were shot in the belief the cult would be cleansed by the sacrifice and go on to find a golden sword in the wilderness of West Virginia..." (Ibid; emphasis mine).

The idea of a cleansing sacrifice can be traced back to the early history of Mormonism. Brigham Young, the successor to Joseph Smith, taught a very similar doctrine called Blood Atonement.

Young explained, "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or 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....

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.

"I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit," (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54; emphasis mine).

In an earlier sermon, Brigham Young had stated, "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;..." (Ibid, Vol. 3, p. 247).

What are these "sins" that men commit which require their own blood to be shed? One of these, according to Brigham Young, was Apostasy.

In 1853, Young described in detail to his audience, a dream, in which he cut the throats of two men and threatened to behead them. He then proceeded to expound his Blood Atonement doctrine with, "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here (in Utah), I will unsheathe my bowie knife, and conquer or die," (Ibid, Vol. 1, p. 83; parenthesis added).

His listeners joined in the vote to do so, with "All hands up." Young then concluded by saying, "Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work," (Ibid; emphasis mine).

Four years later, Young was still teaching his unscriptural brand of Blood Atonement salvation. "This is loving our neighbors as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.

"Any of you who understand the principle of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood... would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind," (Ibid, Vol. 4, p. 220).


It may be correctly observed that Lundgren was never a member of the LDS Church, and thus, never a follower of Brigham Young. Rather, being an offshoot of the RLDS cult, Lundgren would trace his roots back to Joseph Smith III, Joseph Smith Jr.'s son, and the second prophet of the RLDS group.

Though not a direct follower of Young, Lundgren's ideas on apostasy had many similarities.

According to Law Enforcement authorities, Lundgren's cleansing list originally contain¬ed ten names marked for death, rather than just the five Averys.

"The Averys were chosen because they did not live in a commune with the other members and were not believed to be as devout....

"According to a police press release, the Patricks were designated as expendable because they lacked faith in Lundgren," (The Kansas City Times, Jan. 6, 1990, p. A-14).

Regardless of whether or not Lundgren took his doctrine of a cleansing sacrifice from Brig¬ham Young's Blood Atonement teaching, it is an interesting parallel.

One final note, the LDS, RLDS and Lundgren all trace their heritage back to Joseph Smith Jr., who began his church on April 6, 1830. It was a cousin of Joseph's wife Emma, who made a very revealing observation about Joseph's practice of sacrifice.

In speaking of the translation of the ?Book of Mormonœ, Emma Smith's cousin "...reported that Smith `translated the book of Mormon by means of the same peep stone, and under the same inspiration that directed his enchantments and dog sacrifices; it was all by the same spirit,'" (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Dr. D. Michael Quinn, p. 144; emphasis mine).

© Copyright 2000 Watchman Fellowship, Inc.. All rights reserved.


******

Religions change with the whims of men. Today, Young's (who was a church prophet, and supposedly spoke with the authority of God) doctrine of blood atonement is not very popular. So, it undergoes evolution.

One may observe the same thing in other religions. Catholicism, for instance, no longer publicly promotes the doctrine of indulgences. Many debate purgatory, or the need to confess sins to priests.

It is all about maintaining numbers and money.

The religion changes to remain "marketable."

But God does not change. His word does not change. The plan of salvation does not change.

The Lord Jesus Christ (of the Holy Bible - not the differing Jesuses of men's religions) died for our sins, was buried and rose again from the dead.

HE had the power to lay down His life for our sins - He had the power to take that life up again - He has the power to forgive men's sins.

The false Jesus of ANY religion cannot.



_________________________________

There have been several posters who have ranted about blood atonement, and what that may say about the LDS. What I don't understand is why these people would make such a stand against the LDS when so much of so-called blood atonement is more a part of their religious tradition.





Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:24:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
There have been several posters who have ranted about blood atonement, and what that may say about the LDS. What I don't understand is why these people would make such a stand against the LDS when so much of so-called blood atonement is more a part of their religious tradition.








lol, does seem kind of strange doesn't it?

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:45:19 PM EDT
Thanks for appreciating the irony, Dino!
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:45:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
________________________________

There have been several posters who have ranted about blood atonement, and what that may say about the LDS. What I don't understand is why these people would make such a stand against the LDS when so much of so-called blood atonement is more a part of their religious tradition.








The Mormon concept of blood atonement as presented in this thread is most certainly not a part of my religious tradition. The idea of shedding someone's blood to make them acceptable to God is a rather unique doctrine not taught or held by Christian denominations.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:57:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
________________________________

There have been several posters who have ranted about blood atonement, and what that may say about the LDS. What I don't understand is why these people would make such a stand against the LDS when so much of so-called blood atonement is more a part of their religious tradition.








The Mormon concept of blood atonement as presented in this thread is most certainly not a part of my religious tradition. The idea of shedding someone's blood to make them acceptable to God is a rather unique doctrine not taught or held by Christian denominations.



_________________________



In yonder years, I was taught the flesh and blood of Jesus was of paramount importance. And your comment is supportive of...what?

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 1:33:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
________________________________

There have been several posters who have ranted about blood atonement, and what that may say about the LDS. What I don't understand is why these people would make such a stand against the LDS when so much of so-called blood atonement is more a part of their religious tradition.










The Mormon concept of blood atonement as presented in this thread is most certainly not a part of my religious tradition. The idea of shedding someone's blood to make them acceptable to God is a rather unique doctrine not taught or held by Christian denominations.



_________________________



In yonder years, I was taught the flesh and blood of Jesus was of paramount importance. And your comment is supportive of...what?




Obtuseness by design?

By YOUR words you were taught that the FLESH AND BLOOD of JESUS was of paramount importance.

You were not taught that that the blood of the INDIVIDUAL could atone for their own sin. That is what Mormonism doctrine involves, as explained by the second 'prophet' of the Mormon "church."

The distinction is clear, unless you (and other like-minded individuals) just do not WANT to see it, or understand it.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 1:45:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
________________________________

There have been several posters who have ranted about blood atonement, and what that may say about the LDS. What I don't understand is why these people would make such a stand against the LDS when so much of so-called blood atonement is more a part of their religious tradition.








The Mormon concept of blood atonement as presented in this thread is most certainly not a part of my religious tradition. The idea of shedding someone's blood to make them acceptable to God is a rather unique doctrine not taught or held by Christian denominations.



_________________________



In yonder years, I was taught the flesh and blood of Jesus was of paramount importance. And your comment is supportive of...what?




Scuba_ed,

You have to understand where J_W777 is coming from. His earlier comment to this thread was that the LDS Church uses the concept of blood atonement for the purpose of murdering church enemies or for the purpose of massacreing wagon trains of pioneers. This, of course, was never the concept adopted by the LDS Church.

As I previously indicated and cited the concept of blood atonement is moot unless a theocracy, such as existed in the days of Moses, is in effect here on the earth. In Moses' day, the punishement for murder was death. (Genesis 9:6, Numbers 35:16).

Of course, J_W777 really isn't concerned with that. What he's concerned with is slandering the LDS Church in any way he can. Otherwise, he would never have made his first comment on this thread.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:04:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
________________________________

There have been several posters who have ranted about blood atonement, and what that may say about the LDS. What I don't understand is why these people would make such a stand against the LDS when so much of so-called blood atonement is more a part of their religious tradition.








The Mormon concept of blood atonement as presented in this thread is most certainly not a part of my religious tradition. The idea of shedding someone's blood to make them acceptable to God is a rather unique doctrine not taught or held by Christian denominations.



_________________________



In yonder years, I was taught the flesh and blood of Jesus was of paramount importance. And your comment is supportive of...what?




Scuba_ed,

You have to understand where J_W777 is coming from. His earlier comment to this thread was that the LDS Church uses the concept of blood atonement for the purpose of murdering church enemies or for the purpose of massacreing wagon trains of pioneers. This, of course, was never the concept adopted by the LDS Church.

As I previously indicated and cited the concept of blood atonement is moot unless a theocracy, such as existed in the days of Moses, is in effect here on the earth. In Moses' day, the punishement for murder was death. (Genesis 9:6, Numbers 35:16).

Of course, J_W777 really isn't concerned with that. What he's concerned with is slandering the LDS Church in any way he can. Otherwise, he would never have made his first comment on this thread.



___________________________

Understood now...thanks Shane. I suppose I over-reacted to J_W777 (wouldn't want in any way to refer to the REAL John Wayne )...and have understood he has an interesting as self-propogating agenda.

Peace, between us, Shane.

B'Shalom

Ed
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:12:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 3:14:22 PM EDT by scuba_ed]

Originally Posted By criley:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
________________________________

There have been several posters who have ranted about blood atonement, and what that may say about the LDS. What I don't understand is why these people would make such a stand against the LDS when so much of so-called blood atonement is more a part of their religious tradition.










The Mormon concept of blood atonement as presented in this thread is most certainly not a part of my religious tradition. The idea of shedding someone's blood to make them acceptable to God is a rather unique doctrine not taught or held by Christian denominations.



_________________________



In yonder years, I was taught the flesh and blood of Jesus was of paramount importance. And your comment is supportive of...what?




Obtuseness by design?

By YOUR words you were taught that the FLESH AND BLOOD of JESUS was of paramount importance.

You were not taught that that the blood of the INDIVIDUAL could atone for their own sin. That is what Mormonism doctrine involves, as explained by the second 'prophet' of the Mormon "church."

The distinction is clear, unless you (and other like-minded individuals) just do not WANT to see it, or understand it.



________________________

I had better teachers later in life as my religious life owed itself better answers to long-ago questions. Re: "You were not taught that that the blood of the INDIVIDUAL could atone for their own sin." in much the same context...the blood of the indidual, any "INDIVIDUAL" atoning for sin of any nature is sort of abhorrent.

If you want to go a round with me...let it be with me...don't drag in "other like-minded individuals". I'm unsure of your refernce here...would it pain you to explain? Sounds as if you wish to slam others who don't agree with you rather than have civil discourse.



Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:53:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 4:04:13 PM EDT by John_Wayne777]


Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
________________________



In yonder years, I was taught the flesh and blood of Jesus was of paramount importance. And your comment is supportive of...what?






We are discussing two entirely different things here.

The traditional Christian meaning of the term "blood atonement" is applied to the atoning work accomplished by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary. Traditional Christian doctrine teaches that Christ acted as The Spotless Lamb whose innocent blood when applied to the life of a sinful man makes that man legally righteous before God, blotting out any and all sin.

There is an odd concept in Mormon theology, however, that also goes by the name of "blood atonement". Reduced to its most basic elements, it is the idea that some sinners can only be forgiven if they are killed, spilling their own blood for their own atonement. This was the theory used by the Danites (an extreme group of Mormons who perpetrated murders such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre) used to justify their violent actions. Their claim was that by spilling the blood of guilty people, that this would atone for their sins and make them acceptable to God.

That concept is what is being discussed in this thread. Traditional Christian doctrine doesn't teach such an idea nor is it acceptable to traditional Christian thinking because 1.) It portrays Christ's sacrifice as being insufficient for the forgiveness of sins and 2.) It goes against the Biblical teachings on murder

The term "blood atonement" itself is misleading if one isn't familiar with the contraversial Mormon teaching. Someone who is unfamiliar with the Mormon context can easily confuse it with the Christian doctrine of Christ's atonement.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:03:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
Scuba_ed,

You have to understand where J_W777 is coming from. His earlier comment to this thread was that the LDS Church uses the concept of blood atonement for the purpose of murdering church enemies or for the purpose of massacreing wagon trains of pioneers. This, of course, was never the concept adopted by the LDS Church.



No, my EXACT comment was as follows:


Originally posted by John_Wayne777:

There are a few documented incidents of what is called "blood attonement", the most egregious of which is the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Mormon theologians and historians don't talk about it much.

Most Mormons don't even know about it.



Every statement in that quote is true. Few Mormons have ever heard of Mountain Meadows, and I have yet to meet a Mormon in real life who knows much about the doctrine.




Of course, J_W777 really isn't concerned with that. What he's concerned with is slandering the LDS Church in any way he can. Otherwise, he would never have made his first comment on this thread.



I never slandered ANYONE. I said that the most egregious example of this idea was Mountain Meadows. To my knowledge, that is the biggest single act perpetrated by the Danites. I also said that most Mormons don't know about the doctrine. Admittedly I do not know most Mormons, but I have yet to encounter one in real life who even knows about the statements of Young on the topic. I was unaware of it myself until a few years ago when I caught a fleeting mention of it in the writings of another theologian.

All true statements.

Not slander.

Had I actually "slandered" the Mormon church, there would be no question as to whether or not I had done so in my mind or anyone elses.



Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:07:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 4:07:35 PM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
__________________________

Understood now...thanks Shane. I suppose I over-reacted to J_W777 (wouldn't want in any way to refer to the REAL John Wayne )...and have understood he has an interesting as self-propogating agenda.

Peace, between us, Shane.

B'Shalom

Ed



Again, you have no basis in my comments to allege any "agenda" whatsoever.

There have been many threads about Mormons on this site since I got here, and I have not once attacked any Mormon personally, nor have I taken it upon myself to attack their faith. I have stated disagreements with some of their doctrinal ideas, but never have I "slandered" anyone.

Making assertions to the contrary is dishonest.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:57:35 PM EDT
John_Wayne777,

I read your last comments and I'm "digesting" them. I give you the benefit of the doubt. You probably didn't intentionally mean to be slanderous. I probably reacted defensively when I shouldn't have.

Simple truth is that "Blood Atonement" is not a mainstream doctrine of the LDS Church. I've never heard if from the pulpit, nor has anyone I know ever heard anything about it from the pulpit. Other than the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, it hasn't even been officially commented on since Brigham Young's own comment was made. I even learned a little more myself just in researching this topic since this thread was created. It isn't in any official LDS canon, so even finding reliable material can be difficult at best.

Some people scream, "Brigham Young said it, so it must be LDS doctrine!" Interestingly enough, Brigham Young has been quoted in a great many things that aren't LDS doctrine. He was a man of strong feelings and on more than one occasion had to correct himself because the Lord didn't agree with him and prompted him accordingly.

Mountain Meadows isn't known amongst many of the LDS faith because it in practicality had nothing to do with the LDS Church as an organization. Many of the perpetrators of the crime were "Mormon" and the leader of the murderers was a local bishop. Contrary to conspiracy theorists, the LDS Church leadership did not know beforehand what happened and only found out about it more than a week after it happened, at which time Brigham Young summoned Lee to get a first hand account of what happened. Lee lied to Young and said that the crime was committed by local Native Americans. Later Lee was found out and eventually tried and executed.

Still, the Mountain Meadows Massacre had nothing to do with any concept of "blood atonement" which is why I found your remarks suspect. What would the Arkansas wagon train have done that would incite anyone's idea of "blood atonement"?

As for this Wilcox man, why on earth would any LDS Church leader kill him or have him killed. Whoever Wilcox was, he wasn't even in any leadership position that would have posed a threat to Young. So to suggest that Young would have an inconsequential person killed, while ignoring more consequential people such as Sidney Rigdon, is a lapse of logic.

In fact, the only serious reference that I can find on Wilcox is that he supposedly went to Nauvoo to get some wheat ground and disappeared. There's no evidence of murder or that he died at all. In fact, I'm curious where the History Chanel got it's idea that he was stabbed to death without giving any details whatsoever.

Sounds like a consistant trend...someone spreads a rumor about Mormons and it's taken at face value without any verification of the facts.

Sorry, but it's late and I'm rambling on due to being tired. Sorry I was so harsh on you John_Wayne777. Good night.

Link Posted: 9/22/2005 5:35:54 AM EDT
This thread reminds me of the athiests saying christians are all bad because of the crusades and the inquisistion. Brigham Young was a very outspoken person and you can get some interesting things when you cherry pick his writings.

What blood atonement did Joeseph Smith deserve. Joeseph Smith did not follow the mainstream. It may seem like the christians in Ill. were doing the same thing to one that had strayed from them, like the RLDS guy did. It was good christian folks who killed Joeseph. Yet I hear silence.

Just a thought.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 5:54:59 AM EDT
John_Wayne777,

you keep mentioning the Danites committed the massacre. Do you have a source for that? Its my understanding that the Danites weren't even in existence in Utah at the time.

Link Posted: 9/22/2005 6:32:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
John_Wayne777,

you keep mentioning the Danites committed the massacre. Do you have a source for that? Its my understanding that the Danites weren't even in existence in Utah at the time.




Mountain Meadows happened in 1857. The Danites were founded in 1838. The only person punished for Mountain Meadows was John Lee, who was executed on the site of the massacre in 1877.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 7:23:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Dino:
John_Wayne777,

you keep mentioning the Danites committed the massacre. Do you have a source for that? Its my understanding that the Danites weren't even in existence in Utah at the time.




Mountain Meadows happened in 1857. The Danites were founded in 1838. The only person punished for Mountain Meadows was John Lee, who was executed on the site of the massacre in 1877.



A man named Sampson Avard created a group known as the Danites, in response to the mob activity against the Mormons. The Danites were a vigilante group who's purpose was to get revenge against the mobs. This was in stark contrast to Joseph Smith's efforts to work with state and local leaders in Missouri to find peaceful solutions.

Once Joseph Smith became aware of the group he had it dispanded immediately and Sampson Avard was excommunicated. Despite the Danites being disbanded, rumor of the group became something of an urban legend in the Missouri area.

So, contrary to J_W777's assertion, the Danites didn't even exist as a group after 1838. I imagine that some individuals clung to Danite ideals on a personal level, but that hardly constitutes any kind of secret group.

Now, considering that the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened in 1857, and the Danites were ended in 1838, it's a severe stretch of imagination to assume that the Massacre was a Danite-related event.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 7:37:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 7:42:17 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By Shane333:
So, contrary to J_W777's assertion, the Danites didn't even exist as a group after 1838. I imagine that some individuals clung to Danite ideals on a personal level, but that hardly constitutes any kind of secret group.

Now, considering that the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened in 1857, and the Danites were ended in 1838, it's a severe stretch of imagination to assume that the Massacre was a Danite-related event.



So the Danites just up and vanished, eh? There was no carryover into Mormon militias? Everybody decided that they were wrong and just gave up?

Hardly.

Formal existence of the Danite group may have been "ended" by Smith, but Danite sentiment obviously still existed, as Mountain Meadows demonstrates.

The attribution of the MMM events to the Danites by history is done for a reason....

Incidentally, John D. Lee's membership was re-instated by the LDS church in 1961.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 7:43:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Shane333:
So, contrary to J_W777's assertion, the Danites didn't even exist as a group after 1838. I imagine that some individuals clung to Danite ideals on a personal level, but that hardly constitutes any kind of secret group.

Now, considering that the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened in 1857, and the Danites were ended in 1838, it's a severe stretch of imagination to assume that the Massacre was a Danite-related event.



So the Danites just up and vanished, eh? There was no carryover into Mormon militias? Everybody decided that they were wrong and just gave up?

Hardly.

Formal existence of the Danite group may have been "ended" by Smith, but Danite sentiment obviously still existed, as Mountain Meadows demonstrates.

The attribution of the MMM events to the Danites by history is done for a reason....



It's time to own up, Mr. John_Wayne777. If you can't provide documented proof that Mountain Meadows was a Danite act, you're outed as a troll here (ironically, that would still have no bearing on the topic which is blood atonement). I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you've continually made assertions for no other reason than to spread discord and ugly rumor.

Prove me wrong J_W777. Otherwise I'll consider you to be of the same class as Criley.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top