Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 9, 2007 13:21:05 GMT -4
You mean "Art" in the video you posted earlier didn't appear critical of it. "Lillian" was in fact very critical of it, despite appearing to believe it was an authentic LDS doctrine. No, there was a guy with a beard was very sincere in saying that it was authentic and original LDS doctrine. He surely believed it. It must have originated in the LDS church somehow rather than coming from the outside. The guy with the beard was "Art", wasn't it? Was there another guy with a beard? I haven't gone back and watched the video again, but I quite clearly remember Art talking about "blood atonement" with some enthusiasm. Art is wrong, it didn't originate from LDS doctrine, but its critics. Since he was busily setting himself up as the leader of a new (apparently polygamist) splinter group, complete with his own apostles, it's not surprising that he is mistaken as to what is and isn't actual LDS doctrine. No. They have misunderstood Brigham Young's teachings.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 9, 2007 16:58:43 GMT -4
I am sick of this place. You are all idiots, and lunar orbit is the biggest idiot of all. Does it make you feel importent to be an admin? This is bullsh*t, anyone can do it. When you try to pick up girls in bars and tell them you are the administrator, are they impressed? Or do they call you a pathetic looser? You are a joke. It is not posible to have intelligent discussion in your playgroup, people are too illogicial and beleive in ridiculous supersticions. I will not waist anymore time here, it is hopeless, you people do not want to think, there are things in the world and the universe that make you uncomfortable, so you make up nice stories to make yourselves feel better. You are pathetic.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 10, 2007 13:17:56 GMT -4
Do you know who critics these were? Are you saying the whole idea originated outside the church? But didn't you just say it is based on Brigham Young's teachings? No, I said that it was originated by the Church's critics and that they used teachings of Brigham Young out of context to support the idea. The original idea probably dates back to the "Danites". Sampson Avard, who was a dissident against the Church, said in a court proceeding in Missouri in 1838 that Church leaders had organized a band of armed men to attack their non-Mormon neighbors, and that this group was called "the Danites". You should understand that mob violence was rampant in Missouri against the Mormons at the time. The whole area was practically at war in 1838 (it has been called the "1838 Mormon War"). The governor refused to protect the Mormons, in fact he encouraged the mobs, and it led to his infamous Extermination Order authorizing the expulsion of the Mormons from the state or their extermination. A genuine massacre of Mormon settlers occurred at Haun's Mill that year. The Danites really did exist, to some extent. They were an organization devoted to a full range of activities - including defense but also constructing dwellings and securing provisions. Mr. Avard was apparently a captian in the Danites, and when he led his men (not all the Danites, but his own group) in criminal activities to avenge anti-Mormon outrages and was caught, his defense was to claim that his actions were in keeping with normal Danite activities. Joseph Smith denounced Avard, removed him from his official command, and disbanded the Danites completely. Avard saved his own skin with his testimony, and was released. Joseph was imprisoned for six months in Liberty Jail - although he was never convicted of any crime. Avard was excommunicated but of course he was not secretly assassinated, as he would have been if his stories were true. The Danites were such a good set of villains, though, that critics continued to tell stories about Danites well into the late 19th century. They maintained that the Church had disbanded the Danites publicly but maintained a secret group of assassins in private, to strike down apostates. The first Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet was about a murder committed by Danites in this mold, and at least fifty dime novels with "Danite" villains had been printed by 1900. The "doctrine" of Blood Atonement as conceived by the Church's critics, was developed as the explanation for the Danite actions, much as any folklore or urban myth grows over time and acquires its own mythology. Stories of secret assassination squads were so popular that there are people today who think there must be some truth to it. I read the quotations in question in context from Brigham Young's full speeches. In context their meaning is a little less obscure. Some of them relate to capital punishment (capital punishment carried out by the state, that is, not the Church), others are intended to impress the seriousness of sexual and other sins on the saints - basically a "fire and brimstone" speech. One of them cites an old testament incident where an Israelite put a javelin through two adulterers and thus saved Israel from punishment (this one is often quoted with the implication that Brigham Young was actively advocating spearing adulterers). Do you want me to go speech by speech? That could take a while. The period 1856-1857 has been called by some "the Mormon Reformation". It was a movement initiated by Church leaders to "wake up" a community that they perceived was sliding into spiritual apathy. Brigham Young and other leaders of the Church delivered speeches that were very forceful and leaned towards what we would describe as "fire and brimstone" speeches today. Essentially what Brigham Young was saying was that if especially severe sinners fully understood the gravity of their sins that they would willingly die to help atone for them, and that this was sometimes the case in the past, and might be again in the future. The message was the seriousness of the sin, not what punishment should be dealt here and now. I didn't say there was a conspiracy. It was a consensus of the critics. Who might have started the idea in the first place is unclear, but many of the Church's critics grabbed the idea and began to support it as they could. Some sources include: "Achilles" (Samuel D. Sirrine) The Destroying Angels of Mormondom; or a Sketch of the Life of Orrin Porter Rockwell, the late Danite Chief 1878. William Hall, Abominations of Mormonism Exposed; Containing Many Facts and Doctrines Concerning That Singular People, During Seven Year's Membership with Them; From 1840 to 1847 1852. John D. Lee, of Mountain Meadows Massacre infamy ( Mormonism Unveiled, Life and Confession of John D. Lee 1876 - edited by Wm. W. Bishop, Lee's attorney at his second trial) William A. Hickman Brigham's Destroying Angel, Life, Confession and Startling Disclosures of Bill Hickman, the "Danite Chief" of Utah edited by J.H. Beadle 1870. Beadles is also the author of Life in Utah; Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism and other anti-mormon works. Reverend C.P. Lyford, The Mormon Problem 1886. Strangely enough, all of these individuals who write about the LDS Church secretly assassinating their enemies managed to survive to tell their tales. Except Lee, of course, since he was executed for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. If you'd like more on the Danites, I like this (unofficial) site: www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Danites.shtmlThere's also the entry from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=60
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 12, 2007 16:21:29 GMT -4
I am sick of this place. You are all idiots, and lunar orbit is the biggest idiot of all. Does it make you feel importent to be an admin? This is bullsh*t, anyone can do it. When you try to pick up girls in bars and tell them you are the administrator, are they impressed? Or do they call you a pathetic looser? You are a joke. It is not posible to have intelligent discussion in your playgroup, people are too illogicial and beleive in ridiculous supersticions. I will not waist anymore time here, it is hopeless, you people do not want to think, there are things in the world and the universe that make you uncomfortable, so you make up nice stories to make yourselves feel better. You are pathetic.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 12, 2007 18:40:33 GMT -4
Avard did not use "Blood Atonement" as far as I am aware, no. You're effectively asking me to pinpoint when an urban legend began. The best I can do is point you to early sources where elements of it are mentioned, and then later sources where the legend has solidified somewhat.
Lots of people who have done and believe horrible things have called themselves Christians too (*cough*Hitler*cough*). The fact that splinter groups call themselves Mormons has no bearing on what real LDS doctrine is.
Whether the idea is shocking or not has no bearing on whether it actually was believed in or practiced. And it wasn't believed in and wasn't practiced, at least not by the LDS church.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 12, 2007 23:53:58 GMT -4
I am sick of this place. You are all idiots, and lunar orbit is the biggest idiot of all. Does it make you feel importent to be an admin? This is bullsh*t, anyone can do it. When you try to pick up girls in bars and tell them you are the administrator, are they impressed? Or do they call you a pathetic looser? You are a joke. It is not posible to have intelligent discussion in your playgroup, people are too illogicial and beleive in ridiculous supersticions. I will not waist anymore time here, it is hopeless, you people do not want to think, there are things in the world and the universe that make you uncomfortable, so you make up nice stories to make yourselves feel better. You are pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 13, 2007 0:09:33 GMT -4
I am sick of this place. You are all idiots, and lunar orbit is the biggest idiot of all. Does it make you feel importent to be an admin? This is bullsh*t, anyone can do it. When you try to pick up girls in bars and tell them you are the administrator, are they impressed? Or do they call you a pathetic looser? You are a joke. It is not posible to have intelligent discussion in your playgroup, people are too illogicial and beleive in ridiculous supersticions. I will not waist anymore time here, it is hopeless, you people do not want to think, there are things in the world and the universe that make you uncomfortable, so you make up nice stories to make yourselves feel better. You are pathetic.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 12:11:06 GMT -4
In comparison, Blood Atonement seems tame, to a lot, and in the proper context it is understandable. Moses' people slaughtered those who worshiped the Golden Calf. Again, "understandable" is not synonymous with "happened". Which the Lord was usually distinctly unpleased about. It may be understandable, but it was never practiced by the LDS. Brigham Young did not preach it. No, because it is not a real doctrine. Apparently, yes. Different times and different circumstances. Moses had both absolute theological and secular authority. When he ordered the deaths of the worshippers of the Golden Calf he did so with civil as well as theological authority. The LDS church makes a distinction between the two, and by our beliefs theological authority cannot order someone's death for any purpose. In the movie Moses throws the tablets at the idol, which apparently also kills Dathan, and then the earth opens up and swallows all the idol worshippers. That's because the movie ends with Moses' death, before the Israelites enter Palastine. Because it is not noble. God has not sanctioned killing people for religious reasons in our day. We have explicit instructions that the most we are authorized to do is excommunicate an apostate and appeal to civil authorities to punish any crimes they may have committed. Anything further is sinful for us, regardless of what God allowed other God-fearing people to do in the past or what God Himself has done in the past. It is offensive because it is untrue. The lurid stories told about Blood Atonement have probably prevented many from exploring the Church further, meaning they have missed out on the blessings the Church offers.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 12:26:30 GMT -4
Wait a second. You mention Hitler a number of times. This suprises me. I know. I know, we all think he started World War II ans was thus guilty of killing something like 400 million people. Um, maybe that's because he did begin World War II? Yes, I'm sure if the Nazis had won they would have villified FDR, Churchill, and Stalin as much as possible. This is the same political machine that villified an entire race. Your point? Utter hogwash. Hitler put the jews into concentration camps because he hated their race, not because they were disloyal in any way. He did do some small good - the autobahn system and the volkswagon. I suppose he gave pride to the German people again at a time when they felt the whole world was dumping on them. But the evils he did far outweigh the good. Hitler was a monster. I couldn't tell you - I haven't bothered to look because I am unconcerned as to whether they are true or false claims. Perhaps you are proceeding under a misunderstanding. Conducting vicarious temple rites such as baptisms, the endowment, and sealings (marriages) for the dead does not indicate that these indivdiuals are now saved or were otherwise good people. It merely means the Church is serious about following the Lord's commandment that everyone should have the opportunity to accept baptism. Hitler's records were likely submitted by a relative - the Church generally frowns on submitting records for people you are not related to. There are no behavioral criteria for who can and cannot be accepted for vicarious temple rites (those performed after the person is dead), so there was no reason not to accept them. It does not mean that the LDS Church thinks Hitler was an okay guy.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 13, 2007 22:05:50 GMT -4
I am sick of this place. You are all idiots, and lunar orbit is the biggest idiot of all. Does it make you feel importent to be an admin? This is bullsh*t, anyone can do it. When you try to pick up girls in bars and tell them you are the administrator, are they impressed? Or do they call you a pathetic looser? You are a joke. It is not posible to have intelligent discussion in your playgroup, people are too illogicial and beleive in ridiculous supersticions. I will not waist anymore time here, it is hopeless, you people do not want to think, there are things in the world and the universe that make you uncomfortable, so you make up nice stories to make yourselves feel better. You are pathetic.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 14, 2007 12:02:28 GMT -4
Toward the end of World War I, the US president warned that the war was so bloody and costly that if a fair treaty was not reached, whomever lost the war would soon raise up and fight again. That is precisely what happened. Historians would argue that the treaty of Versai caused World War II. The basic unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles was a contributing factor, yes. But Hitler started the actual war. I sincerely doubt it. Yes. Including people who were excommunicated during their life. In fact I answered this question in my last post. Yes it does. The LDS thinking goes like this: 1. Jesus said that everyone must be baptized in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. 2. Large numbers of people had no opportunity to be baptized during their lives. 3. Therefore in order to give everyone the chance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, those who were not baptized while they were here on Earth must have baptism rites performed for them vicariously. 4. We believe that there is a time period after death and before the final judgment during which people can repent and accept the gospel. In particular those who had no contact with the gospel while on Earth will have their opportunity there. 5. As we have no way of knowing who will and will not accept the gospel during this waiting period (or who already has) we allow anyone to be baptized vicariously. That includes people who were as evil as Hitler during their lifetime. The barriers to who can be vicariously baptized deal with verification that an actual deceased person is involved, preferably someone related to the submitter. There are no behavioral barriers, and often we have very little information at all of how a person behaved during their life. Having a vicarious baptism means the deceased individual is now free to accept the rite as if they were baptized while they lived, but they can also chose not to accept it. It does not automatically make them members of the LDS church or cause them to be saved in and of itself - that choice is still up to them. That's the major difference between the rite as performed for the dead as opposed for the living. We do ask the living to make a commitment and meet certain minimum standards before they are baptized. I answered this in an earlier post as well. Go back and re-read my posts please.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 14, 2007 18:11:33 GMT -4
I am sick of this place. You are all idiots, and lunar orbit is the biggest idiot of all. Does it make you feel importent to be an admin? This is bullsh*t, anyone can do it. When you try to pick up girls in bars and tell them you are the administrator, are they impressed? Or do they call you a pathetic looser? You are a joke. It is not posible to have intelligent discussion in your playgroup, people are too illogicial and beleive in ridiculous supersticions. I will not waist anymore time here, it is hopeless, you people do not want to think, there are things in the world and the universe that make you uncomfortable, so you make up nice stories to make yourselves feel better. You are pathetic.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 14, 2007 18:26:05 GMT -4
What about people who are baptized without their approval? They're dead. How do you know they don't approve? What you probably mean is "what about people who were baptized without the approval of their descendents or relatives"? Well, that's why the Church encourages only submitting names of your own relatives - to avoid situations where this may offend someone. Because the Jewish community explicitly requested that we stop, and we don't mind not offending the Jewish community. Church members who are relatives or descendents of Holocaust victims can still submit their names. What about God's commandment that all be baptized? Well, we are commanded to do as much as we can, but obviously we won't be able to find good records for everyone who ever lived on our own. Many of them are unrecorded in any surviving records. The names of these people and the Holocaust victims we are not currently allowed to baptize will have to wait for a future change in circumstances. I thought you said the records were readily available on line. That doesn't sound like hiding it to me.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 14, 2007 20:32:48 GMT -4
What about people who are baptized without their approval? They're dead. How do you know they don't approve? Because if they had wanted to be baptized they would have done it during their life time. It's safer to assume they didn't want to be baptized than to assume they did and just never found the time.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 15, 2007 12:16:18 GMT -4
Because if they had wanted to be baptized they would have done it during their life time. It's safer to assume they didn't want to be baptized than to assume they did and just never found the time. Actually that's an incorrect assumption to make for the vast majority of the people we're talking about here, who were born (and died) before the Church was restored in 1830 or who never heard of the word "Mormon". It would be safer to assume that they never had the opportunity, not that they made a conscious choice not to pursue it. And death likely has an enormous effect on one's perspective. What was true during their lifetime is not necessarily true after they have passed to the other side. Still, if the person doesn't want to accept the baptism they don't have to. Making it available to everyone if they do want it some day is therefore the safer course to take, especially since it does no harm to the person. (How could it do any harm. A) They're dead and B) If you don't believe in the LDS Church than obviously their rite can have no real effect on the person).
|
|