What sins do LDS leaders say we have to pay ourselves to receive forgiveness?

[Exmo-Robertson]

When we look into the early Mormon publications we find that there were many crimes that the Mormon church leaders taught were worthy of death. The following is a list of those crimes:

Murder. Joseph Smith has been quoted as saying: "In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, [b]I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so" (History of the Church, vol. 5, p.296).

The early Mormons believed in beheading and incorporated this into their laws in Utah: "In accordance with the law of Utah, the doomed man was given his choice of three methods of execution - hanging, shooting or beheading" (A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee, p.xix).

In footnote 143 on page 129 of the same book, we read: "Even the law of territorial Utah, as we have explained in the Introduction, allowed John D. Lee, or any other man condemned to death, to elect to be beheaded as a means of saving his immortal soul by the shedding of his blood."

Although we do not hear of murderers having their heads cut off in Utah today, the law still allows the murderer to be shot so that his blood can flow and atone for his sin. Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

... the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.136).

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie once explained: "As a mode of capital punishment, hanging or execution on a gallows does not comply with the law of blood atonement, for the blood is not shed" (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.314).

The Salt Lake Tribune for January 28, 1968, reported: "Japanese District and Family Court Judge Hiroshige Takasawa, after more than a year of research studies of Utah's 'unique' form of capital punishment, has found 'evidence that present laws stem from early Mormon philosophy of blood atonement.' "

As long as the Mormon church teaches the doctrine of blood atonement there is probably little chance of Utah using a gas chamber or electric chair for the condemned murderer.

Adultery and Immorality. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie once lamented: "Modern governments do not take the life of the adulterer, and some of them have done away with the supreme penalty where murder is involved - all of which is further evidence of the direful apostacy that prevails among the peoples who call themselves Christians" (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.104).

Brigham Young proclaimed:

Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands....

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 ... (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p.247).

Heber C. Kimball, who was a member of the First Presidency, reflected:

These are my views, and the Lord knows that I believe in the principles of sanctification; and when I am guilty of seducing any man's wife, or any woman in God's world, I say, sever my head from my body (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.20).

But they cannot whore it here; for, gentlemen, if there is anything of that kind, we will slay both men and women. We will do it, as the Lord liveth - we will slay such characters. Now, which would be the most worthy to be slain - the woman that had had her endowments and made certain covenants before God, or the man that knew nothing about it? The woman, of course (Ibid., vol. 6, p.38).

... our females ... are not unclean, for we wipe all unclean ones from our midst: we not only wipe them from our streets, but we wipe them out of existence ... so help me God, while I live, I will lend my hand to wipe such persons out: and I know this people will (Millennial Star, vol. 16, p.739; also printed in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.19).


Apostle George A. Smith adds: "The principle, the only one that beats and throbs through the heart of the entire inhabitants of this Territory, is simply this: The man who seduces his neighbors wife must die, and her nearest relative must kill him!" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.97).

Stealing. The following statement appeared in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons: "President Joseph Smith said,... I want the elders to make honorable proclamation abroad concerning what the feelings of the first presidency is, for stealing has never been tolerated by them. I despise a thief above ground " (Times and Seasons, vol. 4, pp.183-84).

Brigham Young taught that thieves should have their throats cut:

President Young then spoke against thieving,... said he, I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut ; some of you may say, if that is your feelings Brigham, we'll lay you aside sometime, well, do it if you can; I would rather die by the hands of the meanest of all men, false brethren, than to live among thieves (History of the Church, vol. 7, p.597).

If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot , and never suffer him to commit another iniquity... if I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do.... this appears hard, and throws a cold chill over our revered traditions ... but I have trained myself to measure things by the line of justice.... If you will cause all those whom you know to be thieves, to be placed in a line before the mouth of one of our largest cannon, well loaded with chain shot, I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not. I would consider it just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of his sins [/lb] (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp.108-9).

Apostle Orson Hyde said: "It would have a tendency to place a terror on those who leave these parts, [b]that may prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or shot down before the public ... I believe it to be pleasing in the sight of heaven to sanctify ourselves and put these things from our midst" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.73).

Using the Name of the Lord in Vain. In the journal of Hosea Stout, Brigham Young is recorded as saying: "... I tell you the time is coming when that man uses the name of the Lord is used the penalty will be affixed and immediately be executed on the spot ..." (Journal of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p.71; p.56 of the typed copy at Utah State Historical Society).

For Not Receiving the Gospel. Brigham Young once proclaimed: "The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall ask, 'Are you for God?' and if you are not heartily on the Lord's side, you will be hewn down " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p.226).

For Marriage to an African. Brigham Young said: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p.110).

Wilford Woodruff, who became the fourth president of the Mormon church, recorded in his journal an address delivered by President Brigham Young in 1852. In this address we find the following: " And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cane [sic] the ownly [sic] way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground it would also take the life of his children ..." ("Wilford Woodruff's Journal," January 16,1852, typed copy; original located in LDS church archives).

Mormon writer Lester E. Bush, Jr., admits that in this address Brigham Young taught that " miscegenation required blood atonement (offspring included) for salvation ... " (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p.26).

According to the "Excerpts From The Weekly Council Meetings Of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles," this doctrine was still being taught in 1897. In the report for December 15, 1897, we read:

President Cannon said he had understood President Taylor to say that a man who had the priesthood who would marry a woman of the accursed seed, that if the law of the Lord were administered upon him, he would be killed, and his offspring, for the reason that the Lord had determined that the seed of Cain should not receive the priesthood in the flesh ... ("Excerpts From The Weekly Council Meetings Of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles, Dealing With The Rights Of Negroes In The Church, 1849-1940," as published in Mormonism - Shadow or Reality? p.582).

On August 22, 1895, in this same source, George Q. Cannon taught the same doctrine: "President Cannon remarked that the Prophet Joseph taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood ... and that any white man who mingled his seed with that of Cain should be killed, and thus prevent any of the seed of Cain's coming into possession of the priesthood."

For Covenant Breaking. Jedediah M. Grant, who was second counselor to Brigham Young, preached:

I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood.

We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed ... I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood.... I go for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word, but in deed ... you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid (Deseret News, October 1, 1856, p.235; also Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp.49-51).

On another occasion Jedediah M. Grant exclaimed:

What disposition ought the people of God to make of covenant breakers ... What does the Apostle say? He says they are worthy of death .... Putting to death transgressors would exhibit the law of God, no difference by whom it was done; that is my opinion.... people will look into books of theology, and argue that the people of God have a right to try people for fellowship, but they have no right to try them on property or life That makes the devil laugh, saying, I have got them on a hook now; ... has not the people of God a right to carry out that part of his law as well as any other portion of it? It is their right to baptize a sinner to save him, and it is also their right to kill a sinner to save him, when he commits those crimes that can only be atoned for by shedding his blood.... We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him....

Do you think it would be any sin to kill me if I were to break my covenants? ... Do you believe you would kill me if I broke the covenants of God, and you had the Spirit of God? Yes; and the more Spirit of God I had, the more I should strive to save your soul by spilling your blood, when you had committed sin that could not be remitted by baptism (Deseret News, July 27, 1854).

Heber C. Kimball, the first counselor to Brigham Young, stated: "... if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p.375).


For Apostasy. Brigham Young threatened: "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife and conquer or die. (Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices, generally, 'go it, go it.') If you say it is right, raise your hands. (All hands up.) Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.83)

On another occasion Brigham Young explained:

Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved ... and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say "shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?"

All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?

I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil ... I have known a great many men who left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them, the wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbids this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

This is loving our neighbor 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 principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, 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 (Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp.219-20).


Heber C. Kimball counseled: "... when it is necessary that blood should be shed, we should be as ready to do that as to eat an apple ... we will let you know that the earth can swallow you up, as it did Korah with his host; and as brother Taylor says, you may dig your graves, and we will slay you, and you may crawl into them" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pp.34-35).

Mrs. Brooks remarked that John D. Lee "had seen many cases, among them that of Nephi Stewart, wherein a man was ruined financially and his life endangered by a public announcement that he had been cut off the Church" (John D. Lee, p.293).

For Lying. Brigham Young made this statement in 1846: "I ... warned those who lied and stole and followed Israel that they would have their heads cut off, for that was the law of God and it should be executed" ("Manuscript History of Brigham Young," December 20, 1846, typed copy; original in LDS church archives).

For Counterfeiting. On February 24, 1847, Brigham Young declared: "I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing and counterfeiting their throats should be cut" ("Manuscript History of Brigham Young," February 24,1847, typed copy).

For Condemning Joseph Smith or Consenting to his Death. Norton Jacob quoted Brigham Young as saying: "A man may live here with us and worship what God he pleases or none at all, but he must not blaspheme the God of Israel or damn old Joe Smith or his religion, for we will salt him down in the lake" (Quest for Empire, p.127).

Joseph F. Smith, the sixth president of the church, once admitted that he was about to stab a man with his pocket knife if he even expressed approval of the murder of Joseph Smith. Apostle Abraham H. Cannon recorded the following in his journal under the date of December 6, 1889:

About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant.... Bro. Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met a man who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible feeling as he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, "Just as I have always looked upon it - that it was a d--d cold-blooded murder." The cloud immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open pocket knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this man given his approval to that murder of the prophets he would have immediately struck him to the heart ("Daily journal of Abraham H. Cannon," December 6, 1889, pp.205-6; see Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? p.403, for an actual photograph from the journal).

Did the LDS Church ever pratice what it was preaching here? I'll answer that in another thread.

[Kevin W. Graham]

http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/blood.html


Among the things to be regretted in connection with the "Reformation," and from which the church has suffered much, through misapprehension of her real attitude in respect of the matters involved, are certain extreme and unqualified utterances of some of the leading elders of the church on what it has become custom to call "blood atonement;" by which is meant, as commonly represented by anti-"Mormon" writers, a claimed right on the part of the church to shed the blood of men guilty of heinous crimes, such as murder, adultery, and apostasy; and which, since such acts may not be done openly, and by legal authority vested in the church, then secretly, by assassination. [1]

That there are crimes for which the law of God prescribed capital punishment; and which, under the union of the spiritual and temporal power—under the blending of civil and religious authority in the old state-theocratic government of ancient Israel existed—may not be denied. As for example, in the case of murder, the law given to Noah and his posterity was: "At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of men. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." [2] This law was carried over into the Mosaic polity; and the list of crimes enlarged to include capital punishment for assault of children upon parents; for stealing men and selling them into slavery; for witchcraft; for beastiality; for idolatry; for violating the Sabbath day; for adultery. [3] Capital punishment, however, in ancient Israel, was not left to be executed by irresponsible individuals, and at their caprice. It was sternly regulated by law and executed by legally designated agencies. There are sins enumerated also in the New Testament for which it is said there is no forgiveness. "No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him," saith St. John. [4] "Who so speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." [5] "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness," is the more impressive declaration of St. Mark, "but is in danger of eternal damnation." [6]

"It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." [7]

It is very clear that other New Testament writers recognized a "sin unto death:" "If any man," said St. John, "see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." [8] "For," as declares the writer to the Hebrews, "if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" [9]

It follows as logical conclusion in such cases as are here enumerated that the matter stands with them as if no atonement of the Christ had been made, and they themselves must pay the penalty of their sins. "The life of the flesh," said Moses, is in the blood; "and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." [10]

It may, of course, be urged that reference is here made to the blood of beasts and birds appointed to be slain in sacrifice; and that their blood, typifying the blood of the Christ, which would be shed for remission of sin, was given to ancient Israel to make atonement for their souls; and it is true, as Paul said of the law, "almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood is no remission." [11] But if, as seems to be the case, from the foregoing considerations, there are certain limitations to vicarious atonement, even to the vicarious atonement of the Christ, then these ancient laws proclaiming that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and that "the blood maketh an atonement for the soul," make plain what is needful for the salvation of the soul where one's sins place him beyond the reach of vicarious means of salvation—then it is the shedding of the sinners own blood that must here be referred to. [12] Paul evidently recognized such cases as these; for in referring to one who had been guilty of such sin as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, "that one should have his father's wife," he said:

"For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." [13]

Here then is the doctrine taught that by "destruction of the flesh," there is hope that "the spirit might be saved, in the day of the Lord Jesus." And no one can say that Brigham Young went beyond this when he said—and this is one of the offensive passages so frequently quoted against him by anti-"Mormon" writers:

"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.

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 do know that there are sins committed of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. 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." [14]

The doctrine of "blood atonement," then, is based upon the scriptural laws considered in the foregoing paragraphs. The only point at which complaint may be justly laid in the teaching of the "Reformation" period is in the unfortunate implication that the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or individuals in that church, may execute this law of retribution. [15] Fortunately, however, the suggestions seemingly made in the overzealous words of some of these leading elders were never acted upon. The church never incorporated them into her polity. Indeed, it would have been a violation of divine instruction given in the New Dispensation had the church attempted to establish such procedure. As early as 1831 the law of the Lord was given to the church as follows:

"And now, behold, I speak unto the church: Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. * * * And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and it shall be proven according to the laws of the land." [16]

The same disposition was directed to be made with reference to those who should rob, steal, or lie, that is, they should be delivered up to be dealt with "according to the laws of the land," [17] Those who committed adultery, and repented not, were to be cast out.

A few months later, August, 1831, the Lord said in connection with the purchase of lands in Jackson county:

"Satan putteth it into their hearts [i. e., the hearts of the Missourians] to anger against you, and to the shedding of blood; wherefore the land of Zion, shall not be obtained but by purchase or by blood, otherwise there is none inheritance for you. And if by purchase, behold you are blessed; and if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance." [18]

Moreover, in the very discourse, most frequently quoted by anti-"Mormon" writers against the church on this point—ante this chapter—Brigham Young very clearly indicates that neither the church nor individual members of it had any right to execute the law of retribution he had been discussing. He could refer to "plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins," doubtless having in mind the many such instances named in the scriptures under the law and polity received through Moses; and the legal executions in those nations and states that give sanction to capital punishment for some of these offenses; he had "seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance [in the last resurrection there would be] if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty;" he "had known a great many men who have left this church [i. e. of the Latter-day Saints] for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation; but if their blood had been spilled, [for their crimes, not because they left the church] it would have been better for them;"—yet "the wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force." [19]

All which is but recognition of the fact that said law of God is not now in force, and the "ignorance" of the nations now in power will not permit it to go into force. Under these circumstances, then, what is to be done? On the one hand is God's law of retribution that would destroy certain sinners in the flesh for their crimes, that "the spirit," to use the language of Paul, "might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus;" [20] on the other hand are the "ignorant nations" who will not authorize the penalties affixed to some divine laws, nor prescribe the methods of execution that the law of God anciently ordained; and the church, as an organization, and the individuals comprising it, are forbidden to inflict the physical punishment of death, or any other physical punishment. Under these circumstances, I ask again, what is to be done? Just what Brigham Young did, issue the declaration he made in the very discourse here under consideration, the discourse of February 8th, 1857, but which declaration has never received consideration by anti-"Mormon" writers, nor allowed its place in modifying the spirit of the whole discourse quoted,—often misquoted, and always in some fashion garbled—namely:

"The time has been in Israel under the law of God * * * that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed; * * * but now, I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life." [21]

And that was and is the course and policy followed by the church. If there has been departure in any degree from that policy, and the positive, divine injunction to the church and its individual members—"Thou shalt not kill"—if this injunction has been violated, the responsibility for such departure rests wholly upon the guilty individuals and not upon the church.

It should be noted in this connection that in the individual cases of "blood atonement" charged, the allegations rest upon the word of men who are themselves self-confessed murderers and outlaw desperadoes; or else the charge rests upon the word of anonymous writers; or the cases specified are not such as fall under the category of so-called "blood atonement."

Of the first class the accounts of "blood atonement" are by such characters as John D. Lee, of the "Mountain Meadows" horror, [22] and of William A. Hickman, commonly known as "Bill," Hickman—a typical western desperado; [23] these, et al, loosely ascribe responsibility for their crimes to leading "Mormon" church officials, especially to alleged orders or to the veiled suggestions of President Brigham Young. It would violate all the canons of standard historical writing to consider seriously charges made by such characters. [24]

Of the second class, viz., anonymous persons, usually apostate "Mormons," who kept their identity concealed, it is alleged, through fear of assassination should they be identified with their disclosures, and whose tales of blood and cruelty and of oppression struggle out of obscurity to public attention through sensational writers. These are represented by such anonymous persons as those whose statements are admitted into the pages of Stenhouse, in his Rocky Mountain Saints; [25] by Beadle, in his Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism; [26] by Reverend (!) C. P. Lyford, in his Mormon Problem; [27] and by many others who from one pretense or another conceal the identity of their alleged informers. And yet, as remarked in an official document signed by the first presidency of the church and the twelve apostles, in 1889, there seems to have been no danger to such characters either from open or secret church agencies. "Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates," says the document referred to, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the "Mormon" faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury. [28]

Of the third class of cases, viz., those that do not properly come within the category of alleged "blood atonement" cases, such as where a father or brother personally avenges the outraged chastity of a daughter or sister; or a wronged husband slays the despoiler of his domestic peace and home. Such cases are not peculiar to communities of Latter-day Saints in the United States, they are recognized as appeals to the "unwritten law of the land;" and trial juries quite generally in the United States refuse to convict, either for manslaughter or murder those who take the law into their own hands in such cases. Granting that the severity of the denunciations against violations of chastity and the purity of the home encouraged appeals to "the unwritten law," and hence that such appeals were made more frequently in Utah than elsewhere,—if they were more frequent than elswhere in western America—it still remains to be determined whether or not that is a reproach to the community, or a tribute to the high sense of honor, the virility, the strength, and the courage of the community's manhood. [29]

But this whole question of "blood atonement," so much iterated and reiterated by anti-"Mormon" writers, is put at rest, so far as the church's relationship to it is concerned, by an official proclamation upon the subject, in addition to the divine instructions to the church already cited in this chapter. I give the title and formal introduction to the proclamation, and so much of the document as deals with the subject in hand, and the signatures:

MANIFESTO OF THE PRESIDENCY AND APOSTLES

"SALT LAKE CITY, Dec. 12th, 1889.

To Whom It May Concern:

In consequence of gross misrepresentations of the doctrines, aims and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the 'Mormon' church, which have been promulgated for years, and have recently been revived for political purposes and to prevent all aliens, otherwise qualified, who are members of the 'Mormon' church from acquiring citizenship, we deem it proper on behalf of said church to publicly deny these calumnies and enter our protest against them.

We solemnly make the following declarations, viz.:

That this church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost abhorrence. That we regard the killing of a human being, except in conformity with the civil law, as a capital crime, which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the land. * * *

We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.

The revelations of God to this church make death the penalty of capital crime, and require that offenders against life and property shall be delivered up and tried by the laws of the land.

We declare that no bishop's or other court in this church claims or exercises civil or judicial functions, or the right to supercede, annul or modify a judgment of any civil court. Such courts, while established to regulate Christian conduct, are purely ecclesiastical, and their punitive powers go no further than the suspension or excommunication of members from church fellowship. * * *

[Signed]:

"WILFORD WOODRUFF, GEORGE Q. CANNON, JOSEPH F. SMITH,

Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

LORENZO SNOW, GEORGE TEASDALE,
FRANKLIN D. RICHARDS, HEBER J. GRANT,
BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOHN W. TAYLOR,
MOSES THATCHER, W. W. MERRILL,
FRANCIS M. LYMAN, A. H. LUND,
JOHN HENRY SMITH, ABRAHAM H. CANNON,

Members of the Council of the Apostles.

JOHN W. YOUNG, DANIEL H. WELLS, Counselors." [30]

NOTES

1. See Linn's Story of the Mormons, 1902, book v. ch. ix. Life in Utah, or the Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism, Beadle, 1870, ch. xii. Stenhouse's Rocky Mountain Saints, ch. xxxv. Stenhouse's chapter on the "Reformation" and "Blood Atonement," and constituting the most circumstantial narrative on the excesses of the "Reformation." is largely the contribution of an annonymous writer, a fact that goes far towards destroying the trustworthiness of the statements made. (Waite's Mormon Prophet, 1866, ch. ix. Lights and Shadows of Mormonism, Gibbs, 1909, ch. xxiv).

2. Gen., ix:5, 6.

3. See Exodus, xx, xxi, xxxi; and Leviticus, xxiv. Also Leviticus, xx, cf. Matt., xv:1-9; St. John, viii:3-12.

4. I John, iii:15.

5. St. Matt., xii:32.

6. St. Mark, iii:28, 29.

7. Heb. vi:4-6.

8. I John, v:16.

9. Heb. x:26-29.

10. Leviticus, xvii:11.

11. Heb., ix:22.

12. Not, however,—as I have already urged in preceding pages—by the church; certainly not by individuals taking it upon themselves to be the ministers of God's vengeance; for then they themselves would become murderers. "To me belongeth vengeance and recompense," saith the Lord (Deut., xxxii: 35). "Vengeance is mine; I will repay," saith the Lord (Rom., xii); and therefore must this matter of retribution for sin be left with God and those agencies that he shall ordain to encompass it. These, in part, are the secular governments in whose polities capital punishments are provided for some of the more heinous crimes against society and government, such as murder in the first degree, etc. Therefore the church is commanded to give up those who kill to be dealt with according to the law of the land. And Latter-day Saints believe that where secular government prescribes capital punishment it is better that such form of execution be adopted as will shed the blood of the criminal; hence in Utah, when the Latter-day Saints, in their capacity as citizens of the state have made the laws, condemned criminals, subject to capital punishment, are permitted to choose their mode of execution either by being hung or shot, the latter mode, of course, resulting in the shedding of their blood, thus meeting the requirements of the law of God as well as the law of the state. It is quite erroneously supposed that this idea had its origin among Latter-day Saints with Brigham Young. That, however, is not the case. In the minutes of the Nauvoo city council for March 4th, 1843, occurs the following statement by Joseph Smith: "In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. I replied I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, [this does not mean that he would do so personally; see context of speech], or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so." (History of the Church, Period I, vol. v, p. 296).

13. I Cor., v:1-5.

14. Discourse Sept. 21st, 1856, Deseret News of Oct. 1st, 1856; also Journal of Discourses, vol. iv, p. 53.

15. The passages that warrant the remarks of the text are to be found in a discourse of Jedediah M. Grant on March 12th, 1854, Deseret News, July 27th, 1854; also a discourse on the 21st of September, 1856, Journal of Discourses, vol. iv, p. 49, et seq. Also a discourse delivered by Brigham Young on Feb. 8th, 1857. Journal of Discourses, vol. pp. 219-220.

16. Doctrine and Covenants, sec. xlii:18, 19, 79.

17. Ibid, verses 84-86.

18. Doctrine and Covenants, sec. lxiii. For fuller exposition see this History, ch. xxi.

19. Discourse of Feb. 8th, 1857, Journal of Discourses, vol. iv, p. 220.

20. I Cor., v:3-5.

21. Journal of Discourses, vol. iv, p. 219.

22. See Mormonism Unveiled, Life and Confession of John D. Lee, especially ch. xix. This book—M. E. Mason, publisher, St. Louis, Mo., 1891—is edited by Wm. W. Bishop, Lee's attorney, at his second trial, 1876.

23. Brigham's Destroying Angel, Life, Confession and Startling Disclosures of Bill Hickman, the 'Danite Chief' of Utah, edited by J. H. Beadle, 1870. Beadle is also the author of Life in Utah; Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

[Exmo-Robertson]

Kevin would have us believe that Brigham Young didn't really mean what he was saying and that because the church issued a statement speaking out against it, the practice never occured. We are also suppose to believe it never happend because no events have "officaly" been recorded in a LDS publication. I find it natural that it is so because the leaders of LDS would never let it be known due to how people outside the Church would react. So of course they will never admit it. I have already demonstrated that LDS leaders will lie to cover up the dark side of Mormonism. Kevin would also have us believe: "It would violate all the canons of standard historical writing to consider seriously charges made by such characters." about such people as John D. Lee and Bill Hickman. One has to ask why when Brigham Young tried to protect John D. Lee in his first trial by having a mostly LDS jury vote him "not guilty." For many years after the Mormon Mountain Masscre John D. was seen in the company of Brigham Young and it was known that John D. Lee was Brigham's adopted son. Bill Hickman, if it was true what Mormon apologists would have you believe, was notorious for his crimes, why didn't Brigham Young, who was Gov of the Territory, do anything to have him arrested?
An if you knew that Church policy was to kill apostates and you were an apostate (in the church's eyes) wouldn't you want to remain anonymous when giving your story? Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do? Here is what the Tanners have discovered in their research:


MORMON BLOOD ATONEMENT

Fact or Fantasy?

It is a well-known fact that the early Mormons suffered a good deal of persecution at the hands of the Gentiles -- i.e., non-Mormons. The prophet Joseph Smith and his brother were murdered by a cowardly mob that took the law into their own hands. A number of Mormons lost their lives during these early years. Unfortunately, however, many Mormon historians have overlooked the other side of the story.

During the early years of Mormonism it was frequently alleged that the leaders of the church sanctioned the practice of putting both Gentiles and Mormon apostates to death. In 1969-70, we made a detailed study of the charges and published our conclusions in a book entitled, The Mormon Kingdom, Vol. 2. The evidence that we marshalled convinced us that many of the claims were genuine. Since doing this research we found even more evidence to verify that there was a conspiracy to destroy dissenters and other people that the Mormon leaders hated.

While many Mormon scholars would like to scoff at those who have seriously studied this matter, there is incontrovertible proof that Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon Church, publicly preached a doctrine called "blood atonement." Although one might think that the name of this doctrine came from the atonement of Jesus on the cross, the truth of the matter is that it relates to people being put to death. Brigham Young explained this in a sermon given on September 21, 1856:


I cut this out to save space. The quotes are in the first thread here.

On another occasion Brigham Young made this chilling statement regarding a person's obligation to spill the blood of those who committed serious sins:

Dana: Cut again to save space.

These are only two of many "blood atonement" sermons preached by Mormon leaders. Sandra Tanner, one of the authors of this newsletter who is also the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, was greatly shocked when she read Young's sermons. This, in fact, was an important factor in her decision to leave the Mormon Church.

In 1958, Gustive O. Larson, Professor of Church History at the church's Brigham Young University, acknowledged that blood atonement was actually practiced. He related the following:

"To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his stepdaughter by a bishop's court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] Reformation." (Utah Historical Quarterly, January, 1958, page 62, note 39)

This may be the same case spoken of by John D. Lee, who was sealed to Brigham Young and was a member of Young's secret Council of Fifty:

"The most deadly sin among the people was adultery, and many men were killed in Utah for the crime.

"Rasmos Anderson was a Danish man who came to Utah... He had married a widow lady somewhat older than himself... At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery... they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter. This Council was composed of Klingensmith and his two counselors; it was the Bishop's Council. Without giving Anderson any chance to defend himself or make a statement, the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections... His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried... she being directed to tell those who should inquire after her husband that he had gone to California.

"Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey Council. Anderson got up... and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the "Almighty God." They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.

"As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash... She obeyed their orders.... Anderson was killed just before the Mountain Meadows massacre. The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act. It was justified by all the people, for they were bound by the same covenants, and the least word of objection to thus treating the man who had broken his covenant would have brought the same fate upon the person who was so foolish as to raise his voice against any act committed by order of the Church authorities." (Confessions of John D. Lee, Photo-reprint of 1877 edition, pages 282-283)

In the same book John D. Lee made this startling statement:

"I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo... and I know of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and his Apostles while the Church was there." (Ibid., page 284) Lee also revealed another very cruel practice which took place both in Nauvoo, Illinois, and in early Utah:

"In Utah it has been the custom with the Priesthood to make eunuchs of such men as were obnoxious to the leaders. This was done for a double purpose: first, it gave a perfect revenge, and next, it left the poor victim a living example to others of the dangers of disobeying counsel and not living as ordered by the Priesthood.

"In Nauvoo it was the orders from Joseph Smith and his apostles to beat, wound and castrate all Gentiles that the police could take in the act of entering or leaving a Mormon household under circumstances that led to the belief that they had been there for immoral purposes.... In Utah it was the favorite revenge of old, worn-out members of the Priesthood, who wanted young women sealed to them, and found that the girl preferred some handsome young man. The old priests generally got the girls, and many a young man was unsexed for refusing to give up his sweetheart at the request of an old and failing, but still sensual apostle or member of the Priesthood. As an illustration... Warren Snow was Bishop of the Church at Manti, San Pete County, Utah. He had several wives, but there was a fair, buxom young woman in the town that Snow wanted for a wife.... She thanked him for the honor offered, but told him she was then engaged to a young man, a member of the Church, and consequently could not marry the old priest.... He told her it was the will of God that she should marry him, and she must do so; that the young man could be got rid of, sent on a mission or dealt with in some way... that, in fact, a promise made to the young man was not binding, when she was informed that it was contrary to the wishes of the authorities.

"The girl continued obstinate.... the authorities called on the young man and directed him to give up the young woman. This he steadfastly refused to do.... He remained true to his intended, and said he would die before he would surrender his intended wife to the embraces of another.... The young man was ordered to go on a mission to some distant locality... But the mission was refused...

"It was then determined that the rebellious young man must be forced by harsh treatment to respect the advice and orders of the Priesthood. His fate was left to Bishop Snow for his decision. He decided that the young man should be castrated; Snow saying, 'When that is done, he will not be liable to want the girl badly, and she will listen to reason when she knows that her lover is no longer a man.'

"It was then decided to call a meeting of the people who lived true to counsel, which was held in the school-house in Manti... The young man was there, and was again requested, ordered and threatened, to get him to surrender the young woman to Snow, but true to his plighted troth, he refused to consent to give up the girl. The lights were then put out. An attack was made on the young man. He was severely beaten, and then tied with his back down on a bench, when Bishop Snow took a bowie-knife, and performed the operation in a most brutal manner, and then took the portion severed from his victim and hung it up in the school-house on a nail, so that it could be seen by all who visited the house afterwards.

"The party then left the young man weltering in his blood, and in a lifeless condition. During the night he succeeded in releasing himself from his confinement, and dragged himself to some hay-stacks, where he lay until the next day, when he was discovered by his friends. The young man regained his health, but has been an idiot or quite lunatic ever since....

"After this outrage old Bishop Snow took occasion to get up a meeting... When all had assembled, the old man talked to the people about their duty to the Church, and their duty to obey counsel, and the dangers of refusal, and then publicly called attention to the mangled parts of the young man, that had been severed from his person, and stated that the deed had been done to teach the people that the counsel of the Priesthood must be obeyed. To make a long story short, I will say, the young woman was soon after forced into being sealed to Bishop Snow.

"Brigham Young... did nothing against Snow. He left him in charge as Bishop at Manti, and ordered the matter to be hushed up." (Ibid., pages 284-286)

Mormons today would be appalled if such a dastardly deed was committed and would demand that the persons responsible be severely punished. Brigham Young, however, approved of many violent acts perpetrated by those he put in authority. Interestingly, D. Michael Quinn found documented evidence showing that President Young supported Bishop Warren S. Snow's cruel mistreatment of the young man:

"In the midsummer of 1857 Brigham Young also expressed approval for an LDS bishop who had castrated a man. In May 1857 Bishop Warren S. Snow's counselor wrote that twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis 'has now gone crazy' after being castrated by Bishop Snow for an undisclosed sex crime. When informed of Snow's action, Young said: 'I feel to sustain him...' In July Brigham Young wrote a reassuring letter to the bishop about this castration: 'Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it,' the LDS president advised, 'and it will soon die away among the people.' " (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pages 250-251)

On November 30, 1871, T. B. H. Stenhouse received a letter by an individual who was present at a meeting in Provo, Utah. The letter indicated that Bishop Blackburn was also strongly pushing for the emasculation of men who were disobedient to their leaders:

" 'Dear Stenhouse: I Have read carefully the accompanying statement about the "Reformation."... If you want to travel wider and show the effect in the country of the inflammatory speeches delivered in Salt Lake City at that time, you can mention the Potter and Parrish murders at Springville, the barbarous castration of a young man in San Pete, and, to cap the climax, the Mountain-Meadows massacre... Threats of personal violence or death were common in the settlements against all who dared to speak against the priesthood, or in any way protest against this "reign of terror."

" 'I was at a Sunday meeting in the spring of 1857, in Provo, when the news of the San Pete castration was referred to by the presiding bishop -- Blackburn. Some men in Provo had rebelled against authority in some trivial matter, and Blackburn shouted in his Sunday meeting -- a mixed congregation of all ages and both sexes -- "I want the people of Provo to understand that the boys in Provo can use the knife as well as the boys in San Pete. Boys, get your knives ready, there is work for you! We must not be behind San Pete in good works." The result of this was that two citizens, named Hooper and Beauvere, both having families at Provo, left the following night... Their only offence was rebellion against the priesthood.

" 'This man, Blackburn, was continued in office at least a year after this...

" 'The qualifications for a bishop were a blind submission and obedience to Brigham and the authorities, and a firm, unrelented government of his subjects." (The Rocky Mountain Saints, by T. B. H. Stenhouse, 1873, pages 301-302)

This is a very important letter because it throws additional light upon President Brigham Young's knowledge regarding emasculation in early Utah. According to Wilford Woodruff's journal, not long after Warren S. Snow's cowardly attack on Thomas Lewis, President Young discussed the matter of castration being used to save people:

"I then went into the president office & spent the evening. Bishop Blackburn was present. The subject Came up of some persons leaving Provo who had Apostatized. Some thought that Bishop Blackburn & President Snow was to blame. Brother Joseph Young presented the thing to presidet Young. But When the Circumstances were told Presidet Brigham Young sustained the Brethren who presided at Provo....

"The subjects of Eunuchs came up... Brigham Said the day would Come when thousands would be made Eunochs in order for them to be saved in the kingdom of God." (Wilford Woodruff's Diary, June 2, 1857, Vol. 5, pages 54-55)

In 1861, Apostle Orson Hyde met with Wilford Woodruff and indicated that he believed Warren Snow was guilty of stealing. Wilford Woodruff wrote the following in his journal:

"He spoke of his mission in sanpete and the unwise Course of Bishop Warren Snow, & George Pecock his first councillor. They have squandered a large amount of tithing funds, County taxes &c & Brother Hyde thinks from Testimony guilty of stealing many Cattle." (Ibid., Vol. 5, page 554)

It is astounding to think that the prophet of the Mormon Church would allow such a man as Warren Snow to function as a bishop in the church. Unfortunately, however, President Young went so far as to give him a special blessing. Wilford Woodruff recorded the following in his journal under the date of April 1, 1861: "Warren Stone Snow was Blessed By Presidet Young who gave him a very good Blessing." (Ibid., page 571) Moreover, in 1867, he was given the opportunity to preach in the Mormon Tabernacle (see Vol. 6, page 319).

In a public discourse President Young acknowledged that the church had use for some very mean devils who resided in early Utah:

"And if the Gentiles wish to see a few tricks, we have 'Mormons' that can perform them. We have the meanest devils on the earth in our midst, and we intend to keep them, for we have use for them; and if the Devil does not look sharp, we will cheat him out of them at the last, for they will reform and go to heaven with us." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 176)

Orrin Porter Rockwell was certainly one of Brigham Young's "meanest devils." Rockwell, who had served as a bodyguard for Joseph Smith, did not hesitate to shed blood. The reader will find a photograph of Rockwell on the first page of this newsletter. Bill Hickman was another ruthless man who killed many people. In his book Brigham's Destroying Angels, Hickman confessed that he had committed murders for the church.

In 1858, an extremely grotesque double murder was committed. Henry Jones and his mother were both put to death. These murders were obviously the direct result of Brigham Young's doctrine of "blood atonement."

Two months before Henry Jones was actually murdered, he was viciously attacked. Hosea Stout, a very dedicated Mormon defender, wrote the following regarding the first attack on Jones:

"Saturday 27 Feb 1858. This evening several persons disguised as Indians entered Henry Jones' house and dragged him out of bed with a whore and castrated him by a square & close amputation." (On the Mormon Frontier; The Diary of Hosea Stout, Vol. 2, page 653)

One would think that this would have ended the vendetta against Jones. Unfortunately, this was not the case. On April 19, 1859, the newspaper Valley Tan printed an affidavit by Nathaniel Case which contained a statement implicating a bishop and other Mormons who lived in Payson:

"Nathaniel Case being sworn, says: that he has resided in the Territory of Utah since the year 1850; lived with Bishop Hancock (Charles Hancock) in the town of Payson, at the time Henry Jones and his mother were murdered... The night prior to the murder a secret council meeting was held in the upper room of Bishop Hancock's house; saw Charles Hancock, George W. Hancock, Daniel Rawson, James Bracken, George Patten and Price Nelson go into that meeting that night.... About 8 o'clock in the evening of the murder the company gathered at Bishop Hancock's... They said they were going to guard a corral where Henry Jones[b] was going to come that night and steal horses; they had guns.

"I had a good mini rifle and Bishop Hancock wanted to borrow it; I refused to lend it to him. The above persons all went away together... Next morning I heard that Henry Jones and his mother had been [b]killed. I wnet [sic] down to the dug-out where they lived... The old woman was laying on the ground in the dug-out on a little straw, in the clothes in which she was killed. She had a bullet hole through her head... In about 15 or 20 minutes Henry Jones was brought there and laid by her side; they then threw some old bed clothes over them and an old feather bed and then pulled the dug-out on top of them....

"The next Sunday after the murder, in a church meeting in Payson, Charles Hancock, the bishop, said, as to the killing of Jones and his mother he cared nothing about it, and it would have been done in daylight if circumstances would have permitted it. -- This was said from the stand; there were 150 or 200 persons present. He gave no reason for killing them. And further saith not.

Nathaniel Case.
"Sworn to and signed before me this 9th day of April, 1859.
John Cradlebaugh,
Judge 2nd Judicial District."


In his book, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pages 241-261, Dr. Quinn presented compelling evidence showing that "blood atonement" was endorsed by church leaders and actually practiced by the Mormon people. Quinn gave the names of a number of violent men who served as "enforcers" for Brigham Young. In addition Quinn wrote:

"During this period Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders also repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women. Blood-atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, 'covenant breaking,' counterfeiting, 'many men who left this Church,' murder, not being 'heartily on the Lord's side,' profaning 'the name of the Lord,' sexual intercourse between a 'white' person and an African-American, stealing, and telling lies....

"Some LDS historians have claimed that blood-atonement sermons were simply Brigham Young's use of 'rhetorical devices designed to frighten wayward individuals into conformity with Latter-day Saint principles' and to bluff anti-Mormons. Writers often describe these sermons as limited to the religious enthusiasm and frenzy of the Utah Reformation up to 1857. The first problem with such explanations is that official LDS sources show that as early as 1843 Joseph Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins.

"Moreover, a decade before Utah's reformation, Brigham Young's private instructions show that he fully expected his trusted associates to kill various persons for violating religious obligations. The LDS church's official history still quotes Young's words to 'the brethren' in February 1846: 'I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut.' The following December he instructed bishops, 'when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro' him in the River,' and Young did not instruct them to ask his permission. A week later the church president explained to a Winter Quarters meeting that cutting off the heads of repeated sinners 'is the law of God & it shall be executed...' A rephrase of Young's words later appeared in Hosea Stout's reference to a specific sinner, 'to cut him off -- behind the ears -- according to the law of God in such cases.'...

"When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed 'if they were far away from the Gentiles.' " (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pages 246-247)

There is a lot more to be said on this topic, but I'm limited by space.
Dana

[Kevin W. Graham]

This is actually funny. Like his "sex with Mary" argument, he relies on another massive Church conspiracy theory to explain why there is no evidence of people being killed by the Church. With this approach he can literally invent any accusations against the Church he wants, and then explain away the lack of evidence on the fact that "of course the leaders would hide this doctrine since it is embarassing." How convenient for him to make himself free of any accountability in his comments. Of course, from a logical standpoint, this argument begs the question. But I think most people on this forum are smart enough to know that already.

This reminds me of the Tanners referring to many "secret" teachings. Well, if they are so secret then how do they know about them? But Dana doesn't seem to comprehend what Sam was saying, or what the definition of a theocracy really is. But, we are dealing with someone who doesn't know the meaning of sex, and interprets "I don't know" as "I do know."

I really want to comment on the post by "A atheist", but it will have to wait until Thursday probably. Tomorrow is my birthday and my wife will have me tied up for the next day or two.

[Exmo-Robertson]

And whats funny about Kevin argument is that nothing is fact unless it comes from an LDS source. Then when a LDS source is used it is always taken out of context.
Example of slippery Mormon teachings. In the 60's the leaders "recommended" that the members not drink cola's. This not wasn't "officially" a part of the Word of Wisdom but just a "recommendation." It wouldn't effect you getting a temple recommend. To a lot of members the leaders "recommendation" become their "law." A prime example of this is that I challenge anybody to find a soda machine on the campus of BYU where you can buy a Coke or a Pepsi. Can't be had. But this was only a recommendation.
Now understand the Mormon mind. They are taught that their Prophet is a Seer and Revelator. He gets his authority directly from God. God speaks to the Church through him and hiim alone. Now you're faithful member of the Church. You go to conference and YOUR prophet, seer, and revelator tells you:

This is loving our neighbor 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 principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, 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.

Would you as a faithful consider this just your prophet talking? Would you dare say or think that he really didn't mean it? Brigham Young wasn' kidding and the people who heard him understood that. To try to say that some didn't follow through on these teachings is the most blind of true wishful thinking.

Remember the cola speech, even by their own leaders, was a recommendation. See the results of that. Brigham was laying down law. Would the leaders of the church lie and deceive to serve themselves, yes. That's why the U.S. Government had to send troops to Zion.

[Kevin W. Graham]

In the Old Testament, we find the story of Naaman, as recorded in 2 Kings. Naaman, a great and powerful captain in the army of Syria, had a problem-he was a leper. At the suggestion of his wife's hand-maiden and with the backing of the king, Naaman went to Israel to find the Prophet Elisha and to be healed from this horrible disease. Naaman arrived at the residence of Elisha, with great expectations, only to be met by a messenger at the door. The message to Naaman: "Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean."1

Naaman didn't like this too much. Here he had come a long way to see the prophet and to be miraculously healed, and all he gets is a messenger telling him to go wash in the river Jordan seven times? What made the Jordan so special? Why seven times? He saw no benefit to this advice. Disgusted, Naaman goes away "in a rage."2

We find many people in history unwilling to heed a prophet's voice as the will of God. Many people don't see the wisdom in a prophet's counsel. And why should they? For the sake of Pete, what good would washing seven times in a river do? That makes no sense at all. Why would a man claiming to be a prophet of God command someone to do things that just don't make sense? Why should we trust him?

Let us turn to the seventeenth chapter of 1 Kings and learn about the widow of Zarephath. In a time of drought and famine, this widow found herself with only a handful of meal and a bit of oil. This would provide one last meal, however small, for her and her son, before they would starve to death. As she was preparing to make that final meal, she saw Elijah. Elijah asked her for some water and bread. After she explained her dismal situation to him, Elijah told her to "Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son."3

What an awful thing to ask a poor widow. She has nothing except that which to make a small piece of bread, and this prophet commands her to feed him first and then with whatever is left over, she can feed herself and her son? Now, Elijah promised the widow that if she would do this, she and her son would have enough to eat until the drought was over. Promised future blessings for great sacrifices now.

Well, how do these stories play out? Are we to listen to these prophets? Are we to put our total trust in them? Should the widow and Naaman follow the commandments of these men of God? The conclusions of McKeever and Johnson seem to lead us to a clear and resounding, "No!" According to these authors, it is foolish to follow those claiming to be prophets. We can only conclude, based on their writings, that McKeever and Johnson would support Naaman's reaction to storm away in anger when the command from this prophet didn't square with his expectations. We can also conclude that had these authors been in Zarephath to counsel the widow, the advice would have been not to follow the command of Elijah, for a true prophet wouldn't ask a poor widow to do such a thing. To sum it up, no one should place his or her trust in these prophets.

Now, if you find yourself puzzled, you are not alone. For, on the one hand, McKeever and Johnson profess a belief, trust and faith in the writings of apostles and prophets. Yet, on the other hand, the authors take a position in direct opposition to the first, by suggesting that we should not put our lives in the prophets' hands; implying that the writers of the Bible would not want us to trust what they say. It is extremely puzzling. Yet, this is exactly the conclusion of McKeever and Johnson.

Trust Church Leaders?
Let's take a closer look at their case. McKeever and Johnson spend the first five or six pages of this chapter quoting former leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These quoted statements exhort members of the Church to trust their leaders (accepted by Church members as apostles and prophets, just as those who wrote the Bible) and follow their teachings. The point, McKeever and Johnson conclude, is that trusting in these men, their teachings and their counsel, is a foolish and destructive path. Literally, 90 percent of these first pages are quotes from Church leaders. A few examples of these statements are listed below.

Right below the chapter heading, on the first page of the chapter, we find this quote, from Harold B. Lee:

Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow the ones whom the Lord has placed to preside over his church.4

Certainly, no one could find fault with this statement. It is attributed to those placed in prophetic authority. If a Protestant applied this statement to Peter or Paul, the authors would have no problem with it. Additionally, if a Protestant were to attribute a similar statement to his or her ecclesiastical leaders (i.e. pastors, ministers, etc.), most would not find reason to object. Would McKeever and Johnson have us lock ourselves in a room with our Bible as opposed to "standing on the shoulders" of those who have been called of God to lead us?

The current leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley, is quoted by the authors:

Never let yourselves be found in the position of fighting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You cling to it and be faithful to it. You uphold and sustain it. You teach its doctrines and live by it. And I do not hesitate to say that your lives will be the richer and happier because of that. You cannot find happiness fighting the work of God.5

Again, if a Baptist leader were to make this statement regarding the Baptist church, would a Baptist find cause for concern? Of course not. The fact that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that its teachings are true and that its members should follow its teachings only demonstrates the faith of the leaders in the accuracy of its teachings. Perhaps I am missing something, but shouldn't every member of a church believe in the teachings of that church?

Should a Methodist leader teach that it is acceptable to fight against the Methodist church? Would it be appropriate for this Methodist leader to teach anything less than faithfulness to the church's teachings? No, of course not. I don't find the fault with Gordon B. Hinckley's remarks as McKeever and Johnson do. I'm not sure what they expect a religious leader to say. Should the president of the Southern Baptist Convention teach the Southern Baptist members across America NOT to be faithful to its teachings? Or NOT to teach its doctrines? I'm not certain that McKeever and Johnson realize how daft their conclusion really is. What do they expect religious leaders to say?

Who Do We Trust?
In the area of doctrine and interpreting scripture for doctrinal purposes, McKeever and Johnson attempt to paint a picture of restriction for members of the Church. They frame this painting with the idea that members are not allowed to "[trust] in their own rationale."6 The authors portray Church leaders as those who do not permit freethinking in scripture interpretation and do not allow the members to declare doctrine for themselves. The authors cite Aldin Porter in documenting this view, as saying:

While we are members of the Church, we are not authorized to publicly declare our speculations as doctrine nor to extend doctrinal positions to other conclusions based upon the reasoning of men and women, even by the brightest and most well-read among us. …When you see any document, any address, any letter, any instruction that is issued by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, it should be recognized for what it surely is-the mind and the will of the Lord to his people in this day.7

Once again, McKeever and Johnson would have their readers believe that the members of the Church are to be blind sheep, just doing what they are told and nothing else. And, true to form, these anti-Mormon authors follow the same pattern as do others. While quoting leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, anti-Mormon authors like to conveniently omit sections that would, if read, shed additional light. Let's see what we find when we look at the entire quote as opposed to the ellipsis (…) version the authors provided for us above.

Looking at the entire statement, we find Aldin Porter making the following statement. (The statement below is found within the statement above, where the ellipsis […] is. In other words, this is the part that the authors omitted from Porter's statement above):

On one occasion during the Savior's mortal ministry, he was challenged by those who were opposing him. They wondered how a person could speak with such certainty without the education of the world.

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:16-17)

We must learn the will of our Father in Heaven by earnest study. Next, we must act upon it. Study alone is not sufficient; we must act upon the words of revelation before we know of a surety of the truthfulness of the doctrines…If we will follow, with diligence, the counsel and instruction that is the united voice of these Brethren, we will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether they speak of themselves."8

There is no suggestion of any blind-sheep mentality in this statement. We find a scriptural example of how we are to know the doctrine of Jesus, even the doctrine of God. This is the counsel of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, you won't find this in McKeever and Johnson's book. Rather, they would have their readers believe that the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a cultish "put on your blinders, follow, and don't ask any questions," approach. That is not the case. The authors apparently determined the need to omit this portion of the statement, because it doesn't square with their agenda. It actually demonstrates how wrong they are. So, their solution is to take that portion out altogether, they take the corners off this square peg, so they can fit it into their round hole. This is typical anti-Mormon scholarship and was to be expected.

Continuing on this subject, the authors refer to a quote from Church leader, Ezra Taft Benson, as follows:

Doctrinal interpretation is the province of the First Presidency. The Lord has given that stewardship to them by revelation. No teacher has the right to interpret doctrine for the members of the Church.9

The authors question the "role of such authority,"10 and wonder how people can "trust these men."11 I ask the question…is it so difficult to believe that a religious leader would counsel the adherents of the religion to follow the teachings of the religion? Would Billy Graham be found preaching his interpretation of the word of God, yet following up his sermons with a statement, "but you folks interpret this stuff however you want…don't mind me…this is just a guess…faith, works, baptism…your guess is as good as mine?" Of course not! Would Jerry Falwell teach his doctrine and his interpretation of scripture, but say to his teachers, "Go teach what you want…you can change anything you see fit because the doctrine I declare isn't any better than what you could come up with…feel free to declare whatever you think." Ridiculous, isn't it? Yet, McKeever and Johnson put forth such an argument. This is the conclusion reached by these authors. They would have the members out seeking their own interpretation of scripture to determine their own doctrine.

Now, let's try to figure out why on earth LDS leaders would put forward such a declaration. Why wouldn't they want members to go out and find their own interpretation of the scriptures? Perhaps we can find an answer in the scriptures.

In 2 Peter, we find a very familiar passage: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."12 We find this clear admonishment by Peter, himself, that the prophecies of the scriptures (teachings, doctrines, etc) are not to be interpreted individually according to one's own opinions. Doctrinal declaration is not to be left to the members of the Church. Now, perhaps McKeever and Johnson haven't been able to find any religious leaders they feel they can trust. This may very well be the case, but I question their potential for success in finding a Christian leader (local, national, or international) who would agree with their conclusion. Allowing the "private interpretation" of scripture and doctrinal declaration to be held by individual people would lead to mass confusion and thousands of differing, if not opposing, doctrines and teachings (sounds like an accurate description of Protestant Christianity, doesn't it).

What If They Are Wrong?
In a tone of flabbergastation (new word) and unbelief, McKeever and Johnson follow the Ezra Taft Benson quote with the following remark:

"Do most Mormons accept this role of such authority, even to trust these men to lead them to eternal life? Apparently so. What if they are wrong?"13

The authors ask a fair question here. I answer it with another question. Put yourself in Jerusalem, two thousand years ago, witnessing the preaching of Peter unto people of Jerusalem as recorded in the second chapter of Acts. The people are "pricked in their heart,"14 and ask Peter and the other apostles, "what shall we do?"15 Peter answers with three simple, yet direct commands, "Repent," "be baptized," and "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."16 Did the people trust Peter and the apostles? Should they have trusted them? What if Peter was wrong? These are the questions the authors would have us ask.

Let's ask the same question that McKeever and Johnson ask, in a more current setting, yet referring to these words of Peter: Do most Christians, today, "accept this role of such authority" (of Peter and the apostles), "even to trust these men" (Peter and the apostles) "to lead them to eternal life?" Apparently so ( if one believes in the Bible). "What if they are wrong?"

Brigham Young, himself, delivered wisdom on this subject. Now, you will find this statement to be contrary to what the authors want their readers to believe but, nonetheless, it demonstrates how the Latter-day Saints are asked to follow. (This quote was cited again in 1950, in the General Conference of the Church, almost one-hundred years after Young's original statement):

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him...Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually.17

This is certainly a different tune than the one that McKeever and Johnson would have their readers believe that LDS leaders sing, isn't it? The authors would rather have their readers believe that LDS leaders want the members to just close their eyes and follow, without questions. We find the truth far from the song of McKeever and Johnson.

The real concern is that many people reading this book by McKeever and Johnson are accepting the authors' self-appointed role as such authority, even to trust the authors to lead them to eternal life. Many people will read this book and put their trust in the authors…the very trust the authors advise us not to instill in anyone. What if they are wrong? I tell you that they are indeed wrong. They are very wrong. That is the travesty.

The View of LDS Members?
The true colors of McKeever and Johnson shine through as they conclude this section of the chapter. After asking the questions above, the authors make this statement:

Some seem to think that they (LDS Leaders) will be forgiven and the issue will be forgotten. Speaking at an LDS Sunstone Symposium on 8 August 1997, Clay Chandler said, 'Our leaders can be forgiven for occasionally deceiving us if they don't violate our trust." Some Christians may not completely understand such rationale, but it must be remembered that for Mormons, rejecting the prophet and other church leaders is akin to rejecting God Himself.18

First of all, let me state unequivocally that this is pure dishonesty. This is an intentional attempt to deceive people who don't know any better. Why do I make such an accusatory statement?

As anyone who has studied The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would know (and the authors tout themselves as "experts"), the Sunstone Symposium is NOT a Church-sponsored symposium…it is far from it. The Sunstone Symposium is held every year by the Sunstone Foundation and provides a forum where a variety of topics among Sunstone subscribers (these include dissident LDS members, excommunicated LDS members, current LDS members, atheists, humanists, etc.) are discussed.

Let us look to the Deseret News, a local Salt Lake City newspaper owned by the LDS Church, an interview with Sunstone's chairman of the board of directors, J.F. "Toby" Pingree:

Although the symposium and journal have made headlines in the past for its open discussion of topics such as feminism and dissident members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Pingree said he doesn't think Sunstone is "on the church's radar screen" right now. "But I think there's even more of a need for (the symposium and journal)," he said, "because BYU is even more restrictive now." According to Pingree, "the faculty at BYU have been led to understand that they shouldn't be participating in Sunstone."19

Is it reasonable to conclude that a symposium that Brigham Young University (BYU), a Church-owned university, faculty isn't even participating in should be considered a valid source to represent the LDS membership as a whole? Most certainly not. The symposium representative, quoted above, seemed to be entirely grateful that the Church is not targeting it, at this time.

Suffice it to say that the Sunstone Symposium is made up of many people, among others, who oppose the Church's positions on a variety of topics. To use a Sunstone source as representative of the LDS membership is nothing less that deceptive and dishonest scholarship. And Chandler, the source of the Sunstone statement used by the McKeever and Johnson, is not even an active member of the Church. He describes himself as a "disengaged" Mormon and is married to a Lutheran pastor (most certainly not representative of the LDS membership).20 Without researching the source used by McKeever and Johnson, which most of their readers will not do, one would accept this as a common LDS view, which it is not.21 Once again, this is the type of scholarship that is to be expected from anti-Mormon authors. Using a dissident Mormon, now turned humanist, as a representative of LDS views is illusory. The view expressed by Chandler in the quote from McKeever and Johnson is not representative of a Latter-day Saint.

Following the Church's Teachings
From this point in the chapter, McKeever and Johnson continue to quote leaders of the Church stating the importance of members to follow the Church's teachings and counsel, while supporting the leaders of the Church. Attempting to contrast this view with the New Testament, the authors then make the following statement:

At the conclusion of the October 1994 general conference, President Howard W. Hunter proclaimed: 'Let us study their words [the prophets and other general authorities], spoken under the Spirit of inspiration, and refer to them often. The Lord has revealed his will to the Saints in this conference.' While the Mormon leaders may say that they and their organization are above reproach, such a position of ultimate authoritarianism is not a New Testament trait.22

The authors take a ridiculous position that we would never find with biblical church leaders. Would we find Moses addressing the children of Egypt in a manner counter to the above statement by Hunter? Perhaps Moses would have advised the Israelites, "the Lord has not revealed his will through my words…The God of Israel is not guiding us…do not refer to my teachings and admonitions to you." Perhaps when Moses came down from the mount with the tablets, he urged the Israelites not to heed the commandments written upon them.

Perhaps Peter would rather those from Jerusalem, in the second chapter of Acts, have questioned his words and his command to repent and be baptized. Perhaps, in some statement that we no longer have, Paul advised the Romans, Corinthians and others not to trust his words. "Do not study my words," he must have suggested, "and do not refer to them often. In fact, throw them away."

Yet this is what McKeever and Johnson would have the leaders of the LDS Church advise its members, for it is the only alternative to advising the members to study, take heed, and follow their teachings. This makes no sense to me.

New Testament Examples?
Let's look at the authors' examples of how New Testament writers "opposed" such a position taught by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ. There are three examples posted. Here is the first:

If the leaders of the early church had claimed ultimate authority, then we could rightly conclude that Paul would never have become an apostle. After his conversion, Acts 9:26 says Paul tried to join the disciples but he was rebuffed due to a lack of trust. The apostles were reluctant to believe that Paul had actually converted. Although it is unclear as to the role Barnabas played in leading the early church, he did stand up for Paul and defended him before the apostles."23

As a point of clarification, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not claim "ultimate authority." That would be God who holds that type of authority. However, if, by "ultimate authority," the authors mean authority from God to declare doctrine and interpret scripture for the purposes of teaching the people, then I have no problem. I felt the need to clarify that term.

Now, anyone familiar with this story, of Paul's first arrival to Jerusalem, knows that McKeever and Johnson's portrayal is a distortion of the facts. I stand amazed that the authors are willing to distort the Bible in order to make a point.

Paul did come to Jerusalem "to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him,"24 and rightfully so. Paul had persecuted them a few years earlier. However, notice that this verse does not say the apostles were afraid. For the apostles were not even present at that instance. It was directly after his frightening the disciples, when "Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles,"25 and told the apostles of Paul's experiences in the Lord.

[Kevin W. Graham]

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201/m20118a.html

Nowhere do we find the apostles "reluctant to believe" Paul had converted. And nowhere do we find Barnabus "defending" Paul. The authors are trying to mix the "disciples" with the "apostles" which is distorting the picture. Simply put, the disciples were afraid, Barnabus took Paul to the apostles and told them what he knew about Paul's conversion, and Paul was accepted as a disciple. Even if the apostles were cautious regarding Paul, due to his previous persecution of the saints, what would that prove? That they were prudent men?

McKeever and Johnson would have us believe this little incident proves that the apostles of the New Testament didn't claim ultimate authority in declaring doctrine and teach the people truth from God. First, this instance with Paul's introduction to the disciples and apostles has nothing whatever to do with their authority to teach doctrine. Second, this is such a backwards argument. The authors are impeaching the writers of their own Bible. Of course the writers of the New Testament claimed to have the authority to declare and teach true doctrine to the people…of course the people could trust them. What are McKeever and Johnson thinking?

The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews clearly advised that "we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip."26 That sounds strikingly similar to the quotes above from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The people are urged to abide by the things they have been taught by the leaders of the Church.

Paul praised the members of the Church in Rome for their obedience and loyalty to the doctrine he had taught them:

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.27

There was no request made by this leader (Paul) of the Roman saints to critique his doctrine, as McKeever and Johnson would have them do…only to abide by it and they were commended for doing so.

Additionally, Paul gave strict instructions to Timothy (a local leader of the Church…a bishop) to exhort the members of the church to conform to and comply with the doctrine they had been taught by the leaders of the Church:

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.28

As Peter was teaching the people, admonishing them to "add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity,"29 he concluded with a strong command to, "give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:"30

Is it possible that, rather than actually trust and follow these instructions, Peter wanted the people to doubt, question and not heed his remarks? Perhaps Peter wanted the people to first go test his directions versus the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament, that would have been available to the people) and then try to figure out if his statement could be trusted. Obviously, counter to the conclusion of McKeever and Johnson, Peter's words are plain and sufficiently direct.

Paul not only commanded the saints in what they should do, but went so far as to command them not to have company with those who disobey the apostle's commands (McKeever and Johnson must be appalled at such direction):

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly…for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us…And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.31

Paul makes a similar demand to the Roman saints regarding those who follow different doctrines:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.32

It appears clear, consistent with Peter's declaration (cited earlier), that Paul did not want the members of the Church to privately interpret doctrine. Paul's instructions are certain: follow the doctrine that the leaders of the Church (apostles) taught them, which is perfectly consistent with the statements by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The View of the Apostles
McKeever and Johnson attempt to demonstrate that the New Testament apostles were in opposition to such a view:

Paul took a position opposite to that held by the leaders of Mormonism. He invited his followers in Galatians 1:8-9 to closely scrutinize his teachings: 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel ... let him be accursed.' He made it clear that even he was not above criticism.33

The authors miss the point and their statement begs the question: What gospel is Paul talking about? The one HE taught them. I am completely baffled how these two men, who run a "Christian Ministry," can entirely miss the plain meaning of this passage and contradict the rest of Evangelical Christianity (of which they claim to be a part). Let's take a look.

Paul opens his letter to the saints at Galatia, with a rebuke (I can just see him shaking his head):

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.34

"I can't believe you Galatians are already distorting the doctrines of Christ that I taught you," he seems to be saying. Paul is not praising these members of the Church for scrutinizing his teachings; he is not inviting them to criticize the gospel he delivered to them. Paul is rebuking them because they were indeed scrutinizing the gospel and perverting it. This is made clear when one reads the next verses in their entirety, as opposed to omitting parts (once again the authors omit the portions that don't agree with their position).

Paul thus continues his reprimand in the same chapter:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.35

Is there any way for Paul to make his directive more certain? Paul is effectively warning the members of the Church by saying that the doctrines "we" taught you are not up for debate or discussion. The gospel "we" taught you is not to be scrutinized. That which "we" taught you is indeed above reproach. The Galatians are not to listen to anything else.

Paul concludes his censure to the saints with this truth:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.36

What Paul and the apostles taught to the saints at Galatia was the Lord's doctrines. He testified that what they learned from their leaders (the apostles) was revealed by the Lord. Compare Paul's words to the statement made by Howard W. Hunter at the conclusion of the 1994 General Conference (this is the quote that McKeever and Johnson had such a problem with):

Let us study their words [the prophets and other general authorities], spoken under the Spirit of inspiration, and refer to them often. The Lord has revealed his will to the Saints in this conference.37

This is exactly what Paul is saying. The LDS leaders (apostles and prophets) are admonishing the members of the Church (saints) in precisely the same way that the New Testament leaders (apostles and prophets) were admonishing the members of the Church (saints). Unfortunately, McKeever and Johnson want people not to trust their leaders. They want us to scrutinize and criticize the apostles of the New Testament. This is not how the Lord's Church worked two thousand years ago, nor is it how the Lord's Church works today.

I wonder which of Paul's writings McKeever and Johnson feel need to be scrutinized and criticized? What parts of Paul's writings do McKeever and Johnson disagree with? Certainly, if Paul is not above reproach, McKeever and Johnson must have some criticism of Paul. I would be interested to learn just which of Paul's teachings they would criticize.

Paul and PeterThe authors' last attempt to demonstrate that the New Testament apostles did not have any special authority to declare doctrine and teach the gospel is in the following statement:

When he [Paul] saw an inconsistency in Peter's behavior among the Gentiles, Paul saw no problem in confronting Peter "to the face" about the matter (Gal. 2:11).38

Are McKeever and Johnson wanting us to believe that a small inconsistency in the behavior of an apostle must disqualify the apostles from having the special authority to teach and declare correct doctrine and principles of the gospel? Apparently. It is necessary to remind the authors and the readers that no one should expect the apostles and prophets to be perfect men. They are human and only Jesus was perfect. But this does not prohibit the leaders of the church (apostles and prophets) from having the authority to lead the people, to teach the people, to declare correct doctrine to the people and to instruct the people to follow their teachings.

The New Testament is replete with these directives from the apostles (as documented by the passages I shared above). Take for example, Paul's strict warning to the members of the Church in Corinth:

I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.39

Take heed of the doctrines that he teaches, Paul exclaims. The members of the Corinthian Church were not to stray from the path Paul had made for them.

Indeed, if we should question, scrutinize and criticize the leaders of the church, as McKeever and Johnson would have us do, one would correctly question the purpose of the apostles, prophets and the leaders of the Church. What benefit are they? Fortunately, we have a crystal clear description of just why the Lord "ordained" them to give them this special "power" and "authority" to preach, teach and declare doctrinal truth of the gospel.40

The most clear and concise description of the purpose of the apostles and prophets is as follows:

And he [Jesus Christ] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.41

What a powerful declaration of truth! The very reason why we have apostles, prophets and other leaders that work together in unity is so that we may know the truth to prevent division and dissension and so we may all be united in the faith, not all confused with our own "private interpretation" of doctrines. However, the conclusions of McKeever and Johnson lead us straight into the storm where we are "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

Living or Dead Prophets
The authors turn their attention to the emphasis that leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints place on living prophets. They have a difficult time dealing with the fact that the leaders and members tend to give more heed to living prophets over dead prophets. This is a simple issue to deal with. Remember, we are operating within a framework where living prophets are on the earth, leading the people. Why would one not listen to a prophet who has been chosen by God to lead in modern times? If we were to place the words of former prophets before the current prophet, what is the use in having a current prophet? We can look to the Bible to see a consistent pattern.

Should the people in Noah's time have disregarded his teachings and revelations in favor of those by previous men of God, as McKeever and Johnson advocate? Most people, in fact, followed that pattern and refused to hearken unto Noah's teachings. We all know what happened to them…they went for a swim. Should the Israelites have placed the teachings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob before Moses' teachings? Should they have ignored the ten commandments and other teachings and counsel of Moses?

Using McKeever and Johnson's logic, the Greeks, Jews and others of the first century should have opted for the doctrines and teachings of Moses instead of the teachings and doctrines of living apostles and prophets of their day. If everyone had held on to previous/dead prophet's teachings (Old Testament…i.e. Law of Moses), we would not have the New Testament today. We know that there were many that did just that…and they lived without the testimony and gospel of Jesus Christ, all due to their unwillingness to listen to living prophets.

The people who fought against Christ and His apostles did so in the name of dead prophets. They refused to listen to and believe Christ Himself and the living prophets (apostles) and instead referred to the teachings of dead prophets. This is a dangerous course the authors have laid out. Why listen to a living prophet? Because the Lord has sent him to us in our day, in our time, for us to heed his words…for they are the words of the Lord for us!

Differences and Contradictions?
The last issue addressed by McKeever and Johnson is the old, rehashed matter of differing opinions among leaders of the Church with reference to God's knowledge and power. The authors quote Brigham Young stating that God is "progressing eternally," which is consistent with Wilford Woodruff's remarks that God is "increasing and progressing." These statements are contrasted, by the authors, with the more recent views expressed by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie that God's knowledge and power is full and complete. Smith said God "knows all things and that his understanding is perfect," while McConkie is quoted as saying God is not "progressing in knowledge," and is not "learning new truth."42

First of all, Bruce R. McConkie attempts to clarify the matter in his book, Mormon Doctrine. McConkie states:

It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the attributes of godliness. He has already gained these things in their fullness. But he is progressing in the sense that his creations increase, his dominions expand, his spirit offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains.43

Unfortunately, the authors decided to leave this explanation of McConkie's teachings on the matter out of their book. This is a sad attempt to portray LDS leaders as inconsistent and contradictory.

The authors are very familiar with McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine, as they quote from it quite frequently. I would expect self-proclaimed "experts" on any particular subject to be more responsible in dealing with an issue such as this. When describing contradicting views of people, it is expected, from a responsible scholarship perspective, to show both sides of the issue and to demonstrate the actual views of the respective sources. This is especially true when one of the sources actually tries to explain how the views are not inconsistent. McKeever and Johnson do no such thing.

Perhaps the issue is deeper that it appears, however. Perhaps there are some differences of opinion between the leaders of the Church (I'm certain that there are) on the deeper matters of God. But, to deal with them in this manner, as the authors do in this case, is disappointing.

Now, back to the larger issue. Even if the authors were correct in their assessment of inconsistent statements of LDS leaders (let's make that assumption), is this a cause for concern? No. To say that small, differing personal opinions among Church leaders on the deeper elements of the gospel diminishes from their calling of God to lead His children and declare official doctrine is completely unfounded and unbiblical. ( Keep in mind that none of these statements were canonized or made official Church doctrine.) Prophets are fallible men with their own opinions on many matters. They are not perfect…only one was perfect. Bruce R. McConkie, himself stated, in an unpublished letter:

As Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes… Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord44

While this letter has not been published, McKeever and Johnson are very aware of it, for it is posted on their website. Yet, they never make an effort to provide this view. I find this approach very suspect.

Can we find examples of prophets and apostles making mistakes in the Bible? Of prophets and apostles voicing their own opinion, not of God? Of course! Non-LDS Bible scholars agree. J.R. Dummelow, a Bible scholar (he is not LDS), makes the following remarks about those who wrote the Bible:

Though purified and ennobled by the influence of (the) His Holy Spirit, these men each had his own peculiarities of manner and disposition - each with his own education or want of education - each with his own way of looking at things-each influenced differently from one another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines - it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries....45

Additionally, Peter, the senior apostle (even McKeever and Johnson recognize him as the senior apostle), actually denied Christ: not once, not twice, but three different times.46 Was this act not inconsistent with what other prophets and apostles taught? Is this appropriate behavior for an apostle of Jesus Christ…indeed a prophet, in every since of the word? Are McKeever and Johnson willing to apply their standard to Peter?

Peter was a man. He was a fallible man who made mistakes. But, he was chosen by God to preach, teach, declare doctrine, reprove and lead the Church. Can you imagine what McKeever and Johnson would write had Brigham Young, Joseph Smith or Gordon B. Hinckley denied Christ? The authors must be willing to apply their standards to all prophets and apostles.

Paul, for example, had his own opinions about marriage and had no problems in voicing them as his own opinions. He even had to insert disclaimers into his letter to the saints at Corinth clarifying that some of his words were not God's words. (Certainly, we may not understand the depth and underlying factors of Paul's remarks on marriage, but that these statements were of his own opinion and not by revelation from God is evident enough.) Statements like, "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God."47

Later in the same chapter Paul includes a command from the Lord, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband."48 Two verses later Paul concludes his commentary on marriage reverting back to his own opinions, when he says, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."49

For another example we could turn to chapter two of Galatians to find disagreement among Church leaders-Peter and Paul, in this case. Should we eliminate these two as true leaders and prophets, due to their disagreements? According to McKeever and Johnson we should.

There is much more in the Bible to illustrate my point. This should be sufficient, however, to demonstrate that these men of God (latter-day as well as ancient-day) are not to be held to a standard that God never intended. These men of God will disagree from time to time. They make mistakes. They have their own opinions on things. God has not revealed every detail about Himself or His gospel to the apostles and prophets. We should not expect absolute agreement on issues where there has been no canonized revelation from God. These men of God continue to learn throughout their lives. They were and are taught just as Isaiah proclaimed, "precept upon precept…line upon line, here a little, and there a little."50

Conclusions
I return to the central questions regarding this chapter and the conclusions of McKeever and Johnson: Should members of the Lord's Church listen to, trust, follow and obey the teachings, doctrine and counsel of those men chosen by the Lord to lead the Church? Or, should the members of the Church follow the alternative pattern posited by the authors and scrutinize, criticize and identify their own "private interpretation?" Using the Bible as our guide, we find the answers loud and clear.

Turning to that incredible day discussed in Acts, chapter two , what did the people do, those who heard Paul's testimony, declaration and command? Did they criticize? Did Paul invite them to scrutinize? No:

[Kevin W. Graham]

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.51

This simple and trusting obedience is touching, isn't it? When the Spirit speaks ("they were pricked in their heart"), everything else is secondary…we are to listen and obey.

What about Naaman? What was he to do? His initial reaction was to follow the same pattern McKeever and Johnson suggested and criticize and ignore the commands by this man, Elisha. And, why not? For, Elisha's instructions made no sense and were not what Naaman expected. But, thankfully, he changed his mind:

And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.52

And he praised God and was ever so thankful that he listened and obeyed the instructions of the man of God.

And how about the poor widow of Zarephath? What was her destiny?

And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days. And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah.53

She trusted and followed his instructions and she was blessed. Elijah, after the widow's son contracted an illness and died, also raised him from the dead. The widow then declared, "I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth."54

This is the pattern that the Lord has set for us.

I think the most significant obstacle for McKeever and Johnson, and the primary reason these authors are unable to actually trust their religious leaders as the members of the Biblical Church did, is this: They are not led by prophets and apostles as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are. This is the difference. I know, as sure as the sun rose this morning, that I am led by a man, as imperfect and fallible as he may be, who was called by God to be His prophet. I know that he was called to be a prophet just as Moses was and just as Peter was.

With that kind of testimony, born of the Spirit of God, I follow His chosen prophet and trust him to lead me to the presence of my glorious Father in Heaven with His Holy Son, Jesus Christ, my Savior and Redeemer on His right hand

[Kevin W. Graham]

The issue above deals with infallability of prophets, which is obviously the problem ex-mormons like Dana have. They assume perfection from prophets, and when they find out this isn't realistic, their world crumbles around them. All because of a careless understanding of who and what prophets are. How sad, because one could easily draw parallels with OT prophets who did some very weird things. Dan would have been one of those picking up the first stone saying "a real prophet wouldn't say that."

The above was an excellent response to McKeever and Johnson written by Cooper Johnson. Part of teh Mormonism 201 project: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/M20118.htm

[dizzle]

Sorry, but I gotta start laying down the hammer on this back to back posting thing. If it were just one long one followed by a short one, I would have just let it slide, but it was two jam packed almost 24K posts followed by a third short one. Please remember the rules here state that back to back posts to a single poster are not allowed, especially when the 24K post limit is circumvented. Also let's try to keep our points short enough that meaningful dialog can take place and not just bury our opponents with volume and bore the audience.

[Exmo-Robertson]

Kevin's response is interesting in that he reprints an article that does not address the quotes given in the first post of this thread. But let take a look at what the author's of this piece have to say. It's too bad that Kevin didn't reveal the source.

Kevin W. Graham:

Some editing to save space. First they tell the story of Naaman in 2 Kings and then they tell the story of the widow of Zarephath, the point being that they were blessed for obeying the prophets without question.

Finally their reach their point:

"Well, how do these stories play out? Are we to listen to these prophets? Are we to put our total trust in them? Should the widow and Naaman follow the commandments of these men of God? The conclusions of McKeever and Johnson seem to lead us to a clear and resounding, "No!" According to these authors, it is foolish to follow those claiming to be prophets. We can only conclude, based on their writings, that McKeever and Johnson would support Naaman's reaction to storm away in anger when the command from this prophet didn't square with his expectations. We can also conclude that had these authors been in Zarephath to counsel the widow, the advice would have been not to follow the command of Elijah, for a true prophet wouldn't ask a poor widow to do such a thing. To sum it up, no one should place his or her trust in these prophets.

This is a true strawman argument. First they tell us without any quotes what Mckeever and Johnson believe about stories they haven't said anything about and then the apologist (like I said, Kevin doesn't tell us the author) ask us if we should listen to these fictional responses. What is the whole point?

Kevin W. Graham:

Now, if you find yourself puzzled, you are not alone. For, on the one hand, McKeever and Johnson profess a belief, trust and faith in the writings of apostles and prophets. Yet, on the other hand, the authors take a position in direct opposition to the first, by suggesting that we should not put our lives in the prophets' hands; implying that the writers of the Bible would not want us to trust what they say. It is extremely puzzling. Yet, this is exactly the conclusion of McKeever and Johnson.

Again, since they give no quotes from those 2, how do we know?

Kevin W. Graham:

Trust Church Leaders?
Let's take a closer look at their case. McKeever and Johnson spend the first five or six pages of this chapter quoting former leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These quoted statements exhort members of the Church to trust their leaders (accepted by Church members as apostles and prophets, just as those who wrote the Bible) and follow their teachings. The point, McKeever and Johnson conclude, is that trusting in these men, their teachings and their counsel, is a foolish and destructive path. Literally, 90 percent of these first pages are quotes from Church leaders. A few examples of these statements are listed below.

People do that because Mormons are always saying we are taking the leaders out of context. Again we really don't know how McKeever and Johnson concluded because no proof is given.

Kevin W. Graham:

Right below the chapter heading, on the first page of the chapter, we find this quote, from Harold B. Lee:

Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow the ones whom the Lord has placed to preside over his church.4

Certainly, no one could find fault with this statement. It is attributed to those placed in prophetic authority. If a Protestant applied this statement to Peter or Paul, the authors would have no problem with it. Additionally, if a Protestant were to attribute a similar statement to his or her ecclesiastical leaders (i.e. pastors, ministers, etc.), most would not find reason to object. Would McKeever and Johnson have us lock ourselves in a room with our Bible as opposed to "standing on the shoulders" of those who have been called of God to lead us?

Here author demonstrates how little he understands the scriptures or Protestants. Paul praised the Bereans for NOT following his word blindly but were comparing what he said with scripture to see if it is in harmony with the scripture they have already received. It is NOT unusual for members of a Protestant church to do the same with their minister.

Kevin W. Graham:

The current leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley, is quoted by the authors:

Never let yourselves be found in the position of fighting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You cling to it and be faithful to it. You uphold and sustain it. You teach its doctrines and live by it. And I do not hesitate to say that your lives will be the richer and happier because of that. You cannot find happiness fighting the work of God.5

Again, if a Baptist leader were to make this statement regarding the Baptist church, would a Baptist find cause for concern? Of course not. The fact that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that its teachings are true and that its members should follow its teachings only demonstrates the faith of the leaders in the accuracy of its teachings. Perhaps I am missing something, but shouldn't every member of a church believe in the teachings of that church?

Here the author really demonstrates how little they understand Protestants. A Baptist would find cause for concern. Why? Because our salvation isn't depended upon our membership in that church. We understand that blind faith and or devotion to any church is a dangerous path that can and has cause many problems in history. Our faith, our salvation, our hope is only in the saving works of Jesus Christ and our relationship with him and him alone. If the leaders of a Church go astray (The People's Temple is a good example) we are not suppose to have such blind faith in the leaders of that church in that we would follow them into the gates of hell with them.

Here they make the same statements with 2 churches adding nothing new. Cut to save space.

The author claims that Mckeever and Johnson misquote Aldin Porter. Saying they members are not allowed to trust in their own rationale. I don't know enough about this quote to comment, but the Church Mag New Era one time said: "When the leaders have spoken, the thinking is done." Section cut to save space.

Kevin W. Graham:
We must learn the will of our Father in Heaven by earnest study. Next, we must act upon it. Study alone is not sufficient; we must act upon the words of revelation before we know of a surety of the truthfulness of the doctrines…If we will follow, with diligence, the counsel and instruction that is the united voice of these Brethren, we will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether they speak of themselves."8

There is no suggestion of any blind-sheep mentality in this statement. We find a scriptural example of how we are to know the doctrine of Jesus, even the doctrine of God. This is the counsel of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, you won't find this in McKeever and Johnson's book. Rather, they would have their readers believe that the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a cultish "put on your blinders, follow, and don't ask any questions," approach. That is not the case. The authors apparently determined the need to omit this portion of the statement, because it doesn't square with their agenda. It actually demonstrates how wrong they are. So, their solution is to take that portion out altogether, they take the corners off this square peg, so they can fit it into their round hole. This is typical anti-Mormon scholarship and was to be expected.

And it is typical apologist scholarship to NOT address the statements their leaders give that contridict their points. I've already shown that LDS leaders are 2 people, one that tells the true church positions on subject to the members and another person that will say anything to cover up and deceive people on the outside.

Kevin W. Graham:
Continuing on this subject, the authors refer to a quote from Church leader, Ezra Taft Benson, as follows:

Doctrinal interpretation is the province of the First Presidency. The Lord has given that stewardship to them by revelation. No teacher has the right to interpret doctrine for the members of the Church.9

The authors question the "role of such authority,"10 and wonder how people can "trust these men."11 I ask the question…is it so difficult to believe that a religious leader would counsel the adherents of the religion to follow the teachings of the religion? Would Billy Graham be found preaching his interpretation of the word of God, yet following up his sermons with a statement, "but you folks interpret this stuff however you want…don't mind me…this is just a guess…faith, works, baptism…your guess is as good as mine?" Of course not! Would Jerry Falwell teach his doctrine and his interpretation of scripture, but say to his teachers, "Go teach what you want…you can change anything you see fit because the doctrine I declare isn't any better than what you could come up with…feel free to declare whatever you think." Ridiculous, isn't it? Yet, McKeever and Johnson put forth such an argument. This is the conclusion reached by these authors. They would have the members out seeking their own interpretation of scripture to determine their own doctrine.

The question is moot, Billy Graham, Jerry Farwell would never tell us that part of our salvation is to get our throat sliced from ear to ear so the blood may hit the ground. And let me clearly state for the record, if they ever DID teach that they would no longer be a leader or teacher of mine.

Now, let's try to figure out why on earth LDS leaders would put forward such a declaration. Why wouldn't they want members to go out and find their own interpretation of the scriptures? Perhaps we can find an answer in the scriptures.

Kevin W. Graham:

In 2 Peter, we find a very familiar passage: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."12 We find this clear admonishment by Peter, himself, that the prophecies of the scriptures (teachings, doctrines, etc) are not to be interpreted individually according to one's own opinions. Doctrinal declaration is not to be left to the members of the Church. Now, perhaps McKeever and Johnson haven't been able to find any religious leaders they feel they can trust. This may very well be the case, but I question their potential for success in finding a Christian leader (local, national, or international) who would agree with their conclusion. Allowing the "private interpretation" of scripture and doctrinal declaration to be held by individual people would lead to mass confusion and thousands of differing, if not opposing, doctrines and teachings (sounds like an accurate description of Protestant Christianity, doesn't it).

What they don't say is that we(Protestants) disagree on minor issues and agree on the major. Notice that small jab at Protestants? Mormons never make fun of other faiths.

Kevin W. Graham:
What If They Are Wrong?
In a tone of flabbergastation (new word) and unbelief, McKeever and Johnson follow the Ezra Taft Benson quote with the following remark:

"Do most Mormons accept this role of such authority, even to trust these men to lead them to eternal life? Apparently so. What if they are wrong?"13

The authors ask a fair question here. I answer it with another question. Put yourself in Jerusalem, two thousand years ago, witnessing the preaching of Peter unto people of Jerusalem as recorded in the second chapter of Acts. The people are "pricked in their heart,"14 and ask Peter and the other apostles, "what shall we do?"15 Peter answers with three simple, yet direct commands, "Repent," "be baptized," and "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."16 Did the people trust Peter and the apostles? Should they have trusted them? What if Peter was wrong? These are the questions the authors would have us ask.

There is a big difference from someone telling to except the Holy Spirit and someone telling us to marry more then one wife or to kill apostates.

Kevin W. Graham:
Let's ask the same question that McKeever and Johnson ask, in a more current setting, yet referring to these words of Peter: Do most Christians, today, "accept this role of such authority" (of Peter and the apostles), "even to trust these men" (Peter and the apostles) "to lead them to eternal life?" Apparently so ( if one believes in the Bible). "What if they are wrong?"

Then we're wrong, but we're not killing people. But it would also mean that Mormonism is even more wrong becuase Joseph Smith used a lot of their teachings to mke the Book of Mormon.

Kevin W. Graham:
Brigham Young, himself, delivered wisdom on this subject. Now, you will find this statement to be contrary to what the authors want their readers to believe but, nonetheless, it demonstrates how the Latter-day Saints are asked to follow. (This quote was cited again in 1950, in the General Conference of the Church, almost one-hundred years after Young's original statement):

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him...Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually.17

This is direct contridiction o his statement one time that he had never given a sermon that couldn't be considered scripture.

I've address enough, the article is useless as any defense against the original thread.

If Kevin wants to debate or address the rest of the article he is free to do so.

[Bill the Cat]

Here's an all time fave of mine:

I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.
( he was talking about catching her in the act of adultery)
Every man and women has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone.
A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, March 16, 1856.

[Exmo-Robertson]

Let me also demonstrate the insincerity and the unreality of the statements make in the article posted by Kevin. This is what Ezra T. Benson had to say on the subject to a group of students at BYU.


FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHETS
By President Ezra Taft Benson
BYU Devotional Assembly
Tuesday, February 26, 1980, 10:00 a.m.

My beloved brothers and sisters. I am honored to be in your presence today. You students are a part of a choice young generation--a generation which might well witness the return of our Lord.

Not only is the Church growing in numbers today, it is growing in faithfulness and, even more important, our young generation, as a group, is even more faithful than the older generation. God has reserved you for the eleventh hour--the great and dreadful day of the Lord. It will be your responsibility not only to help bear off the kingdom of God triumphantly but to save your own soul and strive to save those of your family and to honor the principles of our inspired constitution.

To help you pass the crucial tests which lie ahead I am going to give you today several facets of a grand key which, if you will honor, will crown you with God's glory and bring you out victorious in spite of Satan's fury.

Soon we will be honoring our Prophet on his 85th birthday. As a Church we sing the song, "We Thank Thee, Oh God, For A Prophet." Here then is the grand key--Follow The Prophet--and here now are Fourteen Fundamentals In Following the Prophet, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.



FIRST: The Prophet is the Only Man Who Speaks For The Lord in Everything.

In Section 132 verse 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the Prophet--the President--and says:

"There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred."

Then in Section 21 verses 4-6, the Lord states:

"Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

"For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

"For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you."

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the Prophet? We are to "give heed unto all his words"--as if from the Lord's "own mouth."



SECOND: The Living Prophet is More Vital to Us Than The Standard Works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: 'You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.'

"When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, 'Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.' Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: 'There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now, said he, 'when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.' That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; 'Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.'" (CR, October 1897 pp. 18-19.)



THIRD: The Living Prophet is More Important to Us Than a Dead Prophet.

The living prophet has the power of TNT. By that I mean "Today's News Today." God's revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing. His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the Prophet each week in the Church Section of the Deseret News, and any words of the Prophet contained each month in our Church magazines. Our marching orders for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Ensign magazine.

I am so grateful that the current conference report is studied as part of one of your religion classes--the course entitled "Teachings of the Living Prophets" number 333.

May I commend that class to you and suggest that you get a copy of the class manual at your bookstore whether you're able to take the class or not. The manual is entitled "Living Prophets For A Living Church" for Religion Course number 333.

Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.



FOURTH: The Prophet Will Never Lead The Church Astray.

President Wilford Woodruff stated:

"I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God." (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212-213.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

"I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President (Heber J.) Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home . . . Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'" (CR, October 1960, p. 78.)



FIFTH: The Prophet is Not Required to Have Any Particular Earthly Training or Credentials to Speak on Any Subject or Act on Any Matter at Any Time.[b]

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His Prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject, but as someone said, "A prophet may not have his PhD but he certainly has his LDS." We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, [b]but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you.



SIXTH: The Prophet Does Not Have to Say "Thus Saith the Lord" to Give Us Scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you." (D&C 21:4.)

And speaking of taking counsel from the Prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states:

"Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed."

Said Brigham Young, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." (JD 13:95.)



SEVENTH: The Prophet Tells Us What We Need to Know, Not Always What We Want to Know.

"Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear," complained Nephi's brethren. But Nephi answered by saying ". . . the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." (1 Nephi 16:1, 3.) Or to put it in another prophet's words, "Hit pigeons flutter."

Said President Harold B. Lee:

"You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. . . Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow. . . Let's keep our eye on the President of the Church." (CR, October 1970, p. 152-153.)

But it is the living Prophet who really upsets the world. "Even in the Church," said President Kimball, "many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones." (Instructor 95:257.)

Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or mind their own business. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

Said President Marion G. Romney, "It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets." And then he gives this illustration:

"One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, 'Why did you come to America?' 'I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.' 'Who was the prophet;' I continued. 'Wilford Woodruff.' 'Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?' 'Yes, I do.' 'Do you believe that President Joseph F. Smith was a prophet of God?' 'Yes, sir.'

"Then came the sixty-four dollar question. 'Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?' His answer, 'I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old age assistance.'

"Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living Prophet of God." (CR, April 1953, p. 125.)



EIGHTH: The Prophet is Not Limited by Mens Reasoning.

There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and reasoning of men--between the prophet and the politician or professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,

"Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire." (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, Vol. 2, p. 173.)

Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man's eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6-7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times 15 in a particular river, yet this is precisely what the Prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kings 5.)

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8, 9.)



NINTH: The Prophet Can Receive Revelation on Any Matter--Temporal or Spiritual.

Said Brigham Young:

"Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs. . .

"In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, 'Ye Elders of Israel, . . . will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the Kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?' Not one of them could do it. . .

"I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be." (JD 10:363-364.)



TENTH: The Prophet May be Involved in Civic Matters.

When a people are righteous they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon; Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo and Brigham Young was governor of Utah. Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and of his words the Lord Himself said, "Great are the words of Isaiah." (3 Nephi 23:1.) Those who would remove prophets from politics would take God out of government.



ELEVENTH: The Two Groups Who Have The Greatest Difficulty in Following The Prophet Are The Proud Who Are Learned And The Proud Who Are Rich.

The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion--speaking as a man. The rich may feel they have no need to take counsel of a lowly prophet.

In the Book of Mormon we read:

"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."

"But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God."

"And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches--yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them." (2 Nephi 9:28, 29, 42.)



TWELFTH: The Prophet Will Not Necessarily be Popular With The World or The Worldly.

As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn't exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord's second coming you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them.



THIRTEENTH: The Prophet And His Counselors Make Up The First Presidency--The Highest Quorum in The Church.

In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to the First Presidency as "the highest council of the Church" (107:80) and says ". . . whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, . . ." (112:20.)



FOURTEENTH: The Prophet And The Presidency--The Living Prophet And The First Presidency--Follow Them And Be Blessed--Reject Them and Suffer.

President Harold B. Lee relates this incident from Church history:

"The story is told in the early days of the Church--particularly, I think, at Kirtland--where some of the leading brethren in the presiding councils of the Church met secretly and tried to scheme as to how they could get rid of the Prophet Joseph's leadership. They made the mistake of inviting Brigham Young to one of these secret meetings. He rebuked them, after he had heard the purpose of their meeting. This is part of what he said: 'You cannot destroy the appointment of a prophet of God, but you can cut the thread that binds you to the prophet of God, and sink yourselves to hell.'" (CR, April 1963, p. 81.)

In a general conference of the Church President N. Eldon Tanner stated:

"The Prophet spoke out clearly on Friday morning, telling us what our responsibilities are. . .

"A man said to me after that, 'You know, there are people in our state who believe in following the Prophet in everything they think is right, but when it is something they think isn't right, and it doesn't appeal to them, then that's different.' He said, 'Then they become their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord doesn't want.'

"I thought how true, and how serious when we begin to choose which of the covenants, which of the commandments we will keep and follow. When we decide that there are some of them that we will not keep or follow, we are taking the law of the Lord into our own hands and become our own prophets, and believe me, we will be led astray, because we are false prophets to ourselves when we do not follow the Prophet of God. No, we should never discriminate between these commandments, as to those we should and should not keep." (CR, October 1966, p. 98.)

"Look to the Presidency and receive instruction," said the Prophet Joseph Smith. (Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 161.) But Almon Babbitt didn't, and in the Doctrine and Covenants section 124, verse 84, the Lord states:

"And with my servant Almon Babbitt, there are many things with which I am not pleased; behold, he aspireth to establish his counsel instead of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of my Church; . . ."

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these "Fourteen Fundamentals In Following the Prophet," for our salvation hangs on them.



FIRST: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

SECOND: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

THIRD: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

FOURTH: The Prophet will never lead the Church astray.

FIFTH: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

SIXTH: The prophet does not have to say "Thus Saith the Lord," to give us scripture.

SEVENTH: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

EIGHTH: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

NINTH: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

TENTH: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

ELEVENTH: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

TWELFTH: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

THIRTEENTH: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.

FOURTEENTH: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed--reject them and suffer.



I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain--how close do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord's anointed--the living Prophet--President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

May God bless us all to look to the Prophet and the Presidency in the critical and crucial days ahead is my prayer.

[Xmansmommy]

:shocked: GREAT thread!!!! :thumb:

I'm flooded with a myriad of thoughts and emotions as I've read this thread. I would like to touch on some of the points that most caught my attention, but are not limited to....

Mormons today would be appalled if such a dastardly deed was committed and would demand that the persons responsible be severely punished. Brigham Young, however, approved of many violent acts perpetrated by those he put in authority. Interestingly, D. Michael Quinn found documented evidence showing that President Young supported Bishop Warren S. Snow's cruel mistreatment of the young man:

While this may be true of some Mormons, I'm not so sure I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. For the simple fact still remains Exmo, that many LDS never question the words or exhortations of the "prophets" past or present. I'm sure you'd agree. Many may not publically admit that they have a hard time disagreeing with a "command" but many still adhere to the commands of the LDS "prophets" for various reasons. Many without question. It goes without saying that if you believe JS was a prophet and through Him God restored the "true" church to the inhabitants of the earth, then everything else must be true, whether one agrees with it or not. It is the mindset of many LDS for certain.

We find many people in history unwilling to heed a prophet's voice as the will of God. Many people don't see the wisdom in a prophet's counsel. And why should they? For the sake of Pete, what good would washing seven times in a river do? That makes no sense at all. Why would a man claiming to be a prophet of God command someone to do things that just don't make sense? Why should we trust him?

Kevin, do you not see a major difference in trusting God in a simple washing compared to slicing one's throat from ear to ear for self atonement? I mean surely you jest?

We must learn the will of our Father in Heaven by earnest study. Next, we must act upon it. Study alone is not sufficient; we must act upon the words of revelation before we know of a surety of the truthfulness of the doctrines…If we will follow, with diligence, the counsel and instruction that is the united voice of these Brethren, we will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether they speak of themselves."8

Kevin were those men that acted upon those commands well studied or simply driven by the Spirit? I'm a bit confused at this statement. How can we act upon it to know whether or not it be of God without studying it first as quoted in the beginning of this statement? :huh:

Would Billy Graham be found preaching his interpretation of the word of God, yet following up his sermons with a statement, "but you folks interpret this stuff however you want…don't mind me…this is just a guess…faith, works, baptism…your guess is as good as mine?" Of course not!

:rofl: Gotta love it!!! :wink:

The authors take a ridiculous position that we would never find with biblical church leaders. Would we find Moses addressing the children of Egypt in a manner counter to the above statement by Hunter? Perhaps Moses would have advised the Israelites, "the Lord has not revealed his will through my words…The God of Israel is not guiding us…do not refer to my teachings and admonitions to you." Perhaps when Moses came down from the mount with the tablets, he urged the Israelites not to heed the commandments written upon them.

Perhaps Peter would rather those from Jerusalem, in the second chapter of Acts, have questioned his words and his command to repent and be baptized. Perhaps, in some statement that we no longer have, Paul advised the Romans, Corinthians and others not to trust his words. "Do not study my words," he must have suggested, "and do not refer to them often. In fact, throw them away."

Was it the command of Moses or Peter to castrate or kill those that did not follow their teachings? Did either of them teach self atonement?

Here author demonstrates how little he understands the scriptures or Protestants. Paul praised the Bereans for NOT following his word blindly but were comparing what he said with scripture to see if it is in harmony with the scripture they have already received. It is NOT unusual for members of a Protestant church to do the same with their minister.

Amen! And we are told to compare spiritual with spiritual.

1Corinthians 2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

There is a big difference from someone telling to except the Holy Spirit and someone telling us to marry more then one wife or to kill apostates.
Exactly!

And now that I've spent the better part of this day reading this thread, maybe I'll now go and :spam: for a bit. :lol:

Again, great thread.

:xmm:

[Xmansmommy]

Yesterday @ 09:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136337#post136337)
Dee Dee Warren:



Ahhhhh :ddw: sigh. I really do have a very short attention span personally and find it extremely difficult to follow these types of threads as the lengthy posts are usually too much for my peabrain. :lol: (that's why you see me drop out of a thread after the initial few pages) But this one has me a bit intrigued I have to say. I hope that I can stay focused and continue to follow this thread. I was shocked and appalled to read of some of the things that I've read here today. :eek: Kudos to Exmo, Kevin and :btc:!