10 facts

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Apologette

You know very well that Brigham Young taught that there were some sins for which the Blood of Christ will not atone and a person had to shed their own blood for that sin; when Mark Hofmann admitted to ****ing up two Mormons in his quest to cover up his forgeries, his own father said he should be willing to have his blood shed in atonement. It might not be "officially" taught, but it is believed nevertheless.

So, have you left Yoganandaism yet?

Of course, I know that. But, it is not church doctrine and never has been, as far as I know. I never even heard of it, until I started talking to critics of Mormonism.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Libby

Of course, I know that. But, it is not church doctrine and never has been, as far as I know. I never even heard of it, until I started talking to critics of Mormonism.

Of course you have never heard of it, you never got to the meat of mormonism. There are a lot of things strange to mormons that they don't know, just like this one, (spiritual sealings.)

[Libby]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Of course you have never heard of it, you never got to the meat of mormonism. There are a lot of things strange to mormons that they don't know, just like this one, (spiritual sealings.)

I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Libby

Of course, I know that. But, it is not church doctrine and never has been, as far as I know. I never even heard of it, until I started talking to critics of Mormonism.

You had never heard of the doctrine of "Blood Atonement"? This is another reason you should rethink posting here.. You just don't know the subject.. here is a teaching of Joseph Feilding Smith on that doctrine:

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. Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone as far as possible, in their behalf. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. I, p. 135-136).

If you don't know this what else don't you know I wonder? IHS jim

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Libby

I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine.

Libby, when were you a temple worker? Was it after 1990? If so I can see how you never heard about "blood atonement". But here in Utah it is still a part of the church since a criminal given the death penalty is given a choice of how they wish to die. Two choices, to be shot; which would allow their blood to be split or lethal injection. Have you ever heard of the Danites? I asked Julie this question but she either didn't see it or I am being ignored or maybe she has chosen to go away for awhile as she's done in the past.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Libby

I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine.

Libby, are you making excuses now for the LDSinc,? In saying you got the meat, did you ever get the t-bone part of the cow? what I mean is the part where LDSinc. TBM temple recommend male members would seal women who are not their wive's into what is called a (spiritual marriage?)

[Libby]

Originally Posted by James Banta

You had never heard of the doctrine of "Blood Atonement"? This is another reason you should rethink posting here.. You just don't know the subject.. here is a teaching of Joseph Feilding Smith on that doctrine:

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. Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone as far as possible, in their behalf. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. I, p. 135-136).

If you don't know this what else don't you know I wonder? IHS jim

James, once again, you are misconstruing what I said. This is really a very bad habit of yours. You do not read carefully enough, and this has been a complaint from almost everyone on this board. Please slow down and READ CAREFULLY, before you respond!

Of course, I know about Brigham Young's "blood atonement" and I know who the Danites were, and I said as much, if you had just read my posts! Just because I said it's not church doctrine (which is TRUE...it is not) doesn't mean I don't know about it.

[Libby]

Neverending, my Temple service was after 1990. There is nothing about blood atonement in the Temple, at this time.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Libby

Neverending, my Temple service was after 1990. There is nothing about blood atonement in the Temple, at this time.

That's what I thought. You were never exposed to the real temple ceremony and ALL it's signs and penalties. Sorry Libby but you can't really discuss the temple when you have been given the watered down version. No, blood oaths, no secret hand shakes, no slitting your throat, or pretending to disembowel yourself. These are what most of us who were once Mormons and went through the temple before 1990 were forced to do. My question still remains, if the temple is such an important part of Mormonism and not one Mormon will gain their exaltation without it, why the drastic changes without a revelation. From what I know, JS was told to NEVER alter or change the ceremony, it was God ordained.

[Libby]

Yes, I'm aware of the changes in the Temple. There have been some recent changes, as well, having to do with the initiatories.

I'm not defending the Temple or blood atonement or any of that.

My comment had to do with official doctrine. If it's not official doctrine, it's easy to dismiss as just someone trying to stir the pot. I think that happens often, with these discussions.

If I were still LDS, I wouldn't give the time of day to someone who was digging up dirt from church history. What really grabbed my attention, in the beginning, was a Calvinist who knew his Bible and made wonderful arguments against LDS doctrine as being Biblical.

Everyone is different, I guess, but I just don't think these sensationalistic arguments over blood atonement and Danites mean anything to most LDS.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

My comment had to do with official doctrine. If it's not official doctrine, it's easy to dismiss as just someone trying to stir the pot.

First off tell me what is "official doctrine"?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

First off tell me what is "official doctrine"?

The Standard Works. Bible/Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price/Doctrine & Covenants

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

The Standard Works. Bible/Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price/Doctrine & Covenants

Would it be safe to say that you can throw out all of the words of all of the so called living prophets for the last 100 years along with all of the official LDS publications such as Gospel Principles since none of these are considered official doctrine (with the sole exception--official declaration 2 in 1978 about blacks and the priesthood)? Would it also be save to say that you can throw out all of the temple ceremony that is not found in the standard works since it is not official doctrine of the lds church?

[Libby]

I don't know. You should probably ask someone who is LDS.

I think they would say that most of the teaching manuals are based on the standard works....and most everything else that is published, I would think? It all ties back to the standard works....even some of the Temple can be found in the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses (I think?)..and the D & C.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I don't know. You should probably ask someone who is LDS.

I think they would say that most of the teaching manuals are based on the standard works....and most everything else that is published, I would think? It all ties back to the standard works....even some of the Temple can be found in the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses (I think?)..and the D & C.

But bottom line nothing that they have said nor any of the manuals are official doctrine. What is the point of having a living prophet?

[Libby]

Well....I was told that part of the role of a prophet is to teach the current generation what has already been revealed. When God feels they have a good grasp of what has already been given...then, they will be given more.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well....I was told that part of the role of a prophet is to teach the current generation what has already been revealed. When God feels they have a good grasp of what has already been given...then, they will be given more.

But their words that they teach are not official doctrine so you can't trust what they have taught.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But their words that they teach are not official doctrine so you can't trust what they have taught.

That's true for some of the prophets, like Brigham. He (reportedly) taught a lot of things that were not doctrine and never became official doctrine.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

That's true for some of the prophets, like Brigham. He (reportedly) taught a lot of things that were not doctrine and never became official doctrine.

That is true for all of their prophets unless it is part of the standard works--which is how you have defined official doctrine.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well....I was told that part of the role of a prophet is to teach the current generation what has already been revealed. When God feels they have a good grasp of what has already been given...then, they will be given more.

Huh, what?

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, I'm aware of the changes in the Temple. There have been some recent changes, as well, having to do with the initiatories.

I'm not defending the Temple or blood atonement or any of that.

My comment had to do with official doctrine. If it's not official doctrine, it's easy to dismiss as just someone trying to stir the pot. I think that happens often, with these discussions.

If I were still LDS, I wouldn't give the time of day to someone who was digging up dirt from church history. What really grabbed my attention, in the beginning, was a Calvinist who knew his Bible and made wonderful arguments against LDS doctrine as being Biblical.

Everyone is different, I guess, but I just don't think these sensationalistic arguments over blood atonement and Danites mean anything to most LDS.

The history of Mormonism is of GREAT importance for it shows the world just what kind of people lead the church and the evil that lived in those leaders. You think that bringing up the past is creating, "sensationalistic arguments"? Every LDS member should want to know their history, it is part of who they are. Should I ignore that I came through a polygamous ancestry? Should I ignore that my great-great grandfather walked across the plains, was asked by BY to be part of the Mormon Battalion? This same grandfather suffered great hardships the first winter here in the Salt Lake valley, is this not important to me? YES! IF we forget history, we have the capability to repeat it. Now wouldn't that be great? The men who had their throats slit in the middle of the night by men (Danites) who BY sent out is of importance for again it shows the evil heart of BY. Would the LDS members today want to live like that again? I don't think so for in this day and age, no one could get away with murdering someone for the stupid reason that they weren't living exactly as the prophet of the LDS Church wanted. I am sure that the members here in Utah lived in fear all during BY's reign; at least those members who had their heads on straight.

What of the Mountain Meadows incident, should what happened in southern Utah be forgotten? Should all those innocent people be forgotten along with the children taken from their dead parents and given to LDS families? Libby, wake up, get real and realize that the history of Mormonism should cause members to rethink why they are members. It was one of the reasons I left the church after discovering the DARK secrets that the church would love to do wipe away, like wiping off a black board but must accept and live with. Anything BY said, even if it was never considered doctrine were ideas that the members of his day accepted. After all, he was their prophet and certainly knew more then they did for he was being lead by God, receiving revelation from God. Can you see how serious it is to follow one man and put ALL your trust in one man? We only need concern ourselves with what Christ taught us and anything outside of what He taught is to be ignored.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Libby

James, once again, you are misconstruing what I said. This is really a very bad habit of yours. You do not read carefully enough, and this has been a complaint from almost everyone on this board. Please slow down and READ CAREFULLY, before you respond!

Of course, I know about Brigham Young's "blood atonement" and I know who the Danites were, and I said as much, if you had just read my posts! Just because I said it's not church doctrine (which is TRUE...it is not) doesn't mean I don't know about it.

You said "I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine. "

Just what is doctrine if it isn't what the prophet, seer, and revelator of the church teaches. What is doctrine if it isn't the highest form of worship in mormonism, the temple ceremony? It was therefore taught in the church AS DOCTRINE until 1991.. Oh and your Danite comment to me.. I never brought up the Danites in this thread, NOT EVEN ONCE.. Maybe it is you that isn't reading before you post.. maybe you should slow down a bit.. I would like to see you slow down until you never posted to this channel again..

As for not caring about these terrible EVIL doctrines of mormonism, these doctrines need to be remembered and brought to the attention of the world in order to put a stop to the incessantly evil church from spreading.. I was working one afternoon near temple Square and happened alone a black couple that was in awe of the beauty and message of mormonism. I opened my triple combination and showed them 2 Nephi 5 and Abraham 4. They were shocked at just how evil mormonism IS in it's scriptural teaching that a dark skin is a sign of evil.. We then discussed Acts 8 and saw how much God loves all men in choosing the Ethiopian Eunuch to be the first non-Jew to be brought into the church and that by miraculous means.. The beauty of the buildings, the water features, and the gardens that are temple square hide a church filled with corruption and dead men's bones.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

This is the part of LDSinc. Smoke screen I detest. Every TBM who is deep into the weeds of LDSinc. doctrine and teaching, and I underline, deep, knows what is meant by blood atonement for some sins that Brigham Young taught.

And didn't he teach those things over the pulpit as the prophet of God? Did he not say that after he has checked them to make sure he was correctly quoted that they were scripture? Of course he did.. Wasn't the church taught daily in it's temples before 1991 that we would allow our bowels to be opened and our blood split if we spoke about the keys and signs given in the temple? YES!! And still they want to deny this as a doctrine that the church held. They have never accepted responsibility for their false doctrines, they just stop talking about them and hope they go away.. Tell a newly temple married woman that the anointing she had in the temple used to be far more than oil on her head, that they touched the whole body, and you will be called a liar.. Just as today when we say that Young taught that Adam was our Father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do. We are liars for saying such things.. Ok it's in their own books but we (dissenters) are the only ones that seem to be able to find it.. The same goes with blood atonement.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

That is true for all of their prophets unless it is part of the standard works--which is how you have defined official doctrine.

It is true for all of the prophets, but most of the modern day prophets stick pretty close to the standard works...much more so than Brigham and some of the older prophets. They did tend to go off on their own tangents, at times.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Libby

It is true for all of the prophets, but most of the modern day prophets stick pretty close to the standard works...much more so than Brigham and some of the older prophets. They did tend to go off on their own tangents, at times.

How do you know it was their own tangents? Maybe you're the real prophet?