Dewman LDS Blood Atonement doctrine

[Paul_G]

majick275:

I think it easily verified that the quotes I gave came from the source documents rather than someone else’s testimony of it. (obviously William Law was giving testimony of what he experienced but it is easily verified that those are his actual words.)

In response to your LDS first presidency message I would point out that Wilford Woodruff is of questionable veracity at best due to his statements regarding polygamy. The LDS first presidency up to that time had a history of lying to the federal government about their compliance with the law. Furthermore they had published deliberate deceptions to the world as the D&C up until 1876 contained a section denouncing polygamy as a crime and stating in no uncertain terms that the LDs church did not practice it and believed in monogamy. This would certainly not be the only instance though of later LDS leaders denouncing the teachings of Brigham Young.

I have not doubt that William Law’s statements are as he said them. However, the reliability of his statements are very questionable. It is easy to use his words at face value and be divested of any further investigation as to his motivation. If a person is in the process of starting a church, as William Law was, I am quite sure there might be a goodly amount of spin doctoring going on to justify their new beliefs.

Could you reference how the first presidency lied to the federal government? Also could you show some of the denouncing of Brigham Young? The only denouncing I have seen is the faulty non LDS interpretations and conclusions on topics, such as “blood atonement”

 

[majick275]

The LDS church has denounced Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam as God. It is easily seen that he taught that and it is easy to see that the LDS church has stated that is false doctrine. Gordon B. Hinkley was the most recent source who freely admitted that BY taught that Adam and Eve are our “heavenly parents” and claimed that he doesn’t worry about that. As far as lying to the Government…please… just read any of the myriad of available documents on polygamy. That there was deliberate deception on the part of the LDS church has been freely admitted by Dallin Oaks and others. I wasn’t aware that anyone was even contesting the polygamy days of hiding from the feds. “Nothing to see here, move along…” William Law’s remarks in that particular interview certainly appear objective, he corrects misperceptions and defends the LDS when he feels they are being wrongfully accused. When was starting another church? There is nothing in that inteview that appears to be connected with that in any way. as far as spin doctoring to promote a new church isn’t that the pot calling the kettel black?

 

[Paul_G]

majick275:

As far as lying to the Government…please… just read any of the myriad of available documents on polygamy. That there was deliberate deception on the part of the LDS church has been freely admitted by Dallin Oaks and others. I wasn’t aware that anyone was even contesting the polygamy days of hiding from the feds.

Here is how polygamy ended
*
Manifesto of 1890

The Manifesto of 1890 was a proclamation by President Wilford Woodruff that the Church had discontinued plural marriage. It ended a decade of persecution and hardship in which Latter-day Saints tenaciously resisted what they saw as unconstitutional federal attempts to curb polygamy. While the Manifesto is often referred to as a revelation, the declaration was actually a press release that followed President Woodruff´s revelatory experiences. In this respect, the Manifesto is similar to Doctrine and Covenants Official Declaration—2.

Following the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, the Church found it difficult to operate as a viable institution (see Antipolygamy Legislation). Among other things, this legislation disincorporated the Church, confiscated its properties, and even threatened seizure of its temples. After visiting with priesthood leaders in many settlements, President Woodruff left for San Francisco on September 3, 1890, to meet with prominent businessmen and politicians. He returned to Salt Lake City on September 21, determined to obtain divine confirmation to pursue a course that seemed to be agonizingly more and more clear. As he explained to Church members a year later, the choice was between, on the one hand, continuing to practice plural marriage and thereby losing the temples, “stopping all the ordinances therein,” and, on the other, ceasing plural marriage in order to continue performing the essential ordinances for the living and the dead. President Woodruff hastened to add that he had acted only as the Lord directed: “I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me” (see Appendix; “Excerpts” accompanying Official Declaration—1).

The final element in President Woodruff´s revelatory experience came on the evening of September 23, 1890. The following morning, he reported to some of the General Authorities that he had struggled throughout the night with the Lord regarding the path that should be pursued. “Here is the result,” he said, placing a 510-word handwritten manuscript on the table. The document was later edited by George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency and others to its present 356 words. On October 6, 1890, it was presented to the Latter-day Saints at the General Conference and approved.

While nearly all Church leaders in 1890 regarded the Manifesto as inspired, there were differences among them about its scope and permanence. Some leaders were understandably reluctant to terminate a long-standing practice that was regarded as divinely mandated. As a result, a limited number of plural marriages were performed over the next several years. Not surprisingly, rumors of such marriages soon surfaced, and beginning in January 1904, testimony given in the Smoot hearings made it clear that plural marriage had not been completely extinguished. The ambiguity was ended in the General Conference of April 1904, when the First Presidency issued the “second manifesto,” an emphatic declaration that prohibited plural marriage and proclaimed that offenders would be subject to Church discipline, including excommunication.

The Manifesto of 1890 should be regarded as a pivotal event in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the state of Utah. Not only did it mark the beginning of the end of the official practice of plural marriage, but it also heralded a new age as Latter-day Saints relinquished the isolationist practices of the past and commenced a period of greater accommodation and integration into the fabric of American society (see Utah Statehood).

PAUL H. PETERSON
*

 

[Paul_G]

majick275:

The LDS church has denounced Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam as God. It is easily seen that he taught that and it is easy to see that the LDS church has stated that is false doctrine. Gordon B. Hinkley was the most recent source who freely admitted that BY taught that Adam and Eve are our “heavenly parents” and claimed that he doesn’t worry about that.

Brigham Young did teach things that on face value we would not accept today. However, it was not doctrine then and it is not doctrine to be rejected now. I know that some of the sayings of Brigham are good fodder for the anti Mormon critic. I suppose he had his reasons for stating many things in a provoking way. I’m sure the Lord inspired him in this way to further His will, and we need not always know what that is. I will leave it at that as our topic is “blood atonement”

William Law’s remarks in that particular interview certainly appear objective, he corrects misperceptions and defends the LDS when he feels they are being wrongfully accused.

If you investigate the behavior of apostates they most likely will not reject or criticize all beliefs but will dishonor the leader ship for moving aware from those beliefs. I believe the Catholic Church as somewhat of an experience with this as well.

When was starting another church? There is nothing in that inteview that appears to be connected with that in any way.

That may be true but I believe that was his motivation in his remarks

…as far as spin doctoring to promote a new church isn’t that the pot calling the kettel black?

From your understanding of things, your point is well taken. However, he was not trying to begin a new way of believing, but to replace the current leadership. This opens his comments to suspicion.

 

[Paul_G]

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
The Council of the Twelve
47 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
October 18, 1978

Mr. Thomas B. McAffee
Utah Law Review, College of Law
The University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

Dear Mr. McAffee:
This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1978, to President Spencer W. Kimball of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in which you asked some questions about the so-called doctrine of blood atonement. I have been asked, by President Kimball and by the First Presidency to respond to your inquiries

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

If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is Yes. If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No.

We believe that the blood of Christ, shed in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary, cleanses all men from sin on condition of repentance. As expressed by a Book of Mormon scripture: "Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. (Mosiah 3:18.)

We do not believe that it is necessary for men in this day to shed their own blood to receive a remission of sins. This is said with a full awareness of what I and others have written and said on this subject in times past

In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person. These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice. However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation. It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member or a non-member of the Church.

      There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins.  Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses.  From the day of Joseph Smith to the present there has been no single instance of so-called blood atonement under any pretext.

Anything I have written or anything said by anyone else must be understood in the light of the foregoing limitation. Brigham Young and the others were speaking of a theoretical principle that operated in ages past and not in either their or our day. As I recall, Brigham Young’s illustrations were taken from the day of Moses and the history of ancient Israel and could not be applied today.

There is no such a doctrine as blood atonement in the Church today nor has there been at any time. Any statements to the contrary are either idle speculation or pure fantasy. It is certainly not the current teaching of the Church and I have never in over 60 years of regular church attendance heard a single sermon on the subject or even a discussion in any church class.

You asked if the statements of our leaders of the past, including those found in the Journal of Discourses, represent the official stand of the Church. The answer, as indicated in the comments above set forth, is that they do not. The statements pertain to a theoretical principle that has been neither revealed to nor practiced by us.

If by blood atonement is meant capital punishment, then any proper analysis of the subject would call the matter by the name capital punishment and not by the name blood atonement. To use this latter term is wholly misleading and stirs up the idea that we believe in that which we most emphatically do not believe. Continued…

 

[Paul_G]

…Continued… We believe in capital punishment. In a revelation to Joseph Smith, on February 9, 1831, the Lord said: “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.” (D. & C. 42:18-19.)

In answering some false and scurrilous charges published against the Latter-day Saints, the President of the Church, who then was Wilford Woodruff, on January 9, 1891, wrote to the
editor of the Illustrated American. President Woodruff referred to the doctrine herein being considered as “the blood atonement fiction,” and as “the false theory of blood atonement copied by the writer in the American from old newspaper fiction.”

Then he recites what the doctrine of the Church is when the term blood atonement is used simply as a synonym for capital punishment.

“It is a fundamental doctrine of our creed that a murderer cannot be forgiven; that he ‘hath not eternal life abiding in him’; that if a member of our Church, having received the light of the Holy Spirit, commits this capital crime, he will not receive forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come. The revelations of God to the Church abound in commandments forbidding us to shed blood.”

With specific reference to capital punishment as practiced by the State and not the Church he said: “It is part of our faith that the only atonement a murdere[r] can make for his ‘sin unto death’ is the sheddinq of his own blood, according to the fiat of the Almighty after the flood: ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed.’ But the law must be executed by the lawfully appointed officer. This is ‘blood atonement,’ so much perverted by maligners of our faith. We believe also in the atonement wrought by the shedding of Christ’s blood on Calvary; that it is efficacious for all the race of Adam for the sin committed by Adam, and for the individual sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and who receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of authorized hands. Capital crime committed by such an enlightened person cannot be condoned by the Redeemer’s blood. For him there is ‘no more sacrifice for sin’; his life is forfeit, and he only can pay the penalty. There is no other blood atonement taught, practiced or made part of the creed of the Latter-day Saints.”

I repeat: Except for the atonement of Christ, which is or should be a part of the creeds of all Christian churches; and except for the use of the term “blood atonement” as a synonym–nothing more–of “capital punishment” where “enlightened” members of the Church are concerned, there is no such a doctrine in this dispensation as blood atonement.

I have in my file a letter dated February 12, 1971, signed by Presidents Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee as and for the First Presidency which shows that the theoretical principle of blood atonement has no application in any dispensation when there is a separation of Church and State. They refer to the death of Christ by Jewish hands as a “capital crime,” and then quote the following from the third chapter of Acts:

"And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers . . .
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you.”:
Then they say: “From the above it is understood that this is a matter which must be left in the hands of the Lord, not for man to determine.”

Now, as to your final question–whether blood atonement, “if” it is “a valid doctrine,” would hale any affect on the mode of imposing the death penalty, I need only say:

1. Since there is no such thing as blood atonement, except as indicated above, the mode of execution could have no bearing on the matter of atoning for one’s sins; and
2. If we are speaking simply of capital punishment (and falsely calling it blood atonement), still I can see no reason for supposing that it makes the slightest difference how an execution is accomplished.

As far as I can see there is no difference between a firing squad, an electric chair, a gas chamber, or hanging. Death is death and I would interpret the shedding of man’s blood in legal executions as a figurative expression which means the taking of life. There seems to me to be no present significance as to whether an execution is by a firing squad or in some other way. I, of course, deleted my article on “hanging” from the Second Edition of Mormon Doctrine because of the reasoning here mentioned.
Continued…

 

[Paul_G]

…Continued…
As far as I am concerned you are at liberty to quote from or use this letter in any way you deem proper.
unto you.": Then they say: “From the above it is understood that this is a matter which must be left in the hands of the Lord, not for man to determine.” Now, as to your final question–whether blood atonement, “if” it is “a valid doctrine,” would hale any affect on the mode of imposing the death penalty, I need only say:

1. Since there is no such thing as blood atonement, except as indicated above, the mode of execution could have no bearing on the matter of atoning for one’s sins; and
2. If we are speaking simply of capital punishment (and falsely calling it blood atonement), still I can see no reason for supposing that it makes the slightest difference how an execution is accomplished.
   
   As far as I can see there is no difference between a firing squad, an electric chair, a gas chamber, or hanging. Death is death and I would interpret the shedding of man’s blood in legal executions as a figurative expression which means the taking of life. There seems to me to be no present significance as to whether an execution is by a firing squad or in some other way. I, of course, deleted my article on “hanging” from the Second Edition of Mormon Doctrine because of the reasoning here mentioned.

As far as I am concerned you are at liberty to quote from or use this letter in any way you deem proper.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. McConkie

 

[majick275]

Now I’ll agree with you on this, The current LDS church has denounced “blood atonement” and does not practice it.

 

[majick275]

Paul G:

Here is how polygamy ended
*
Manifesto of 1890

The Manifesto of 1890 was a proclamation by President Wilford Woodruff that the Church had discontinued plural marriage. It ended a decade of persecution and hardship in which Latter-day Saints tenaciously resisted what they saw as unconstitutional federal attempts to curb polygamy. While the Manifesto is often referred to as a revelation, the declaration was actually a press release that followed President Woodruff´s revelatory experiences. In this respect, the Manifesto is similar to Doctrine and Covenants Official Declaration—2.

Following the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, the Church found it difficult to operate as a viable institution (see Antipolygamy Legislation). Among other things, this legislation disincorporated the Church, confiscated its properties, and even threatened seizure of its temples. After visiting with priesthood leaders in many settlements, President Woodruff left for San Francisco on September 3, 1890, to meet with prominent businessmen and politicians. He returned to Salt Lake City on September 21, determined to obtain divine confirmation to pursue a course that seemed to be agonizingly more and more clear. As he explained to Church members a year later, the choice was between, on the one hand, continuing to practice plural marriage and thereby losing the temples, “stopping all the ordinances therein,” and, on the other, ceasing plural marriage in order to continue performing the essential ordinances for the living and the dead. President Woodruff hastened to add that he had acted only as the Lord directed: “I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me” (see Appendix; “Excerpts” accompanying Official Declaration—1).

The final element in President Woodruff´s revelatory experience came on the evening of September 23, 1890. The following morning, he reported to some of the General Authorities that he had struggled throughout the night with the Lord regarding the path that should be pursued. “Here is the result,” he said, placing a 510-word handwritten manuscript on the table. The document was later edited by George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency and others to its present 356 words. On October 6, 1890, it was presented to the Latter-day Saints at the General Conference and approved.

While nearly all Church leaders in 1890 regarded the Manifesto as inspired, there were differences among them about its scope and permanence. Some leaders were understandably reluctant to terminate a long-standing practice that was regarded as divinely mandated. As a result, a limited number of plural marriages were performed over the next several years. Not surprisingly, rumors of such marriages soon surfaced, and beginning in January 1904, testimony given in the Smoot hearings made it clear that plural marriage had not been completely extinguished. The ambiguity was ended in the General Conference of April 1904, when the First Presidency issued the “second manifesto,” an emphatic declaration that prohibited plural marriage and proclaimed that offenders would be subject to Church discipline, including excommunication.

The Manifesto of 1890 should be regarded as a pivotal event in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the state of Utah. Not only did it mark the beginning of the end of the official practice of plural marriage, but it also heralded a new age as Latter-day Saints relinquished the isolationist practices of the past and commenced a period of greater accommodation and integration into the fabric of American society (see Utah Statehood).

PAUL H. PETERSON
*

Even the LDS leaders (Dallin Oaks) have admitted that polygamy did NOT end with the manifesto. Read it for yourself, it is NOT a Commandment in the sense of “thus sayeth the Lord” to stop. It is avery “lawyerese” press release type document for the Feds to see and be appeased by. Where else do you see the LDS “prophet” intending to use his influence rather than plainly saying the Lord wants this to end?

If you claim that polygamy is no longer practiced by the LDS church then I agree with you. It is STILL in the standard works though as an eternal principle. (but I digress form this thread badly) my tie in here is the lack of credibility in LDS leaders denials of wrongdoing on the part of the church.

 

[majick275]

Paul G:

Brigham Young did teach things that on face value we would not accept today. However, it was not doctrine then and it is not doctrine to be rejected now. I know that some of the sayings of Brigham are good fodder for the anti Mormon critic. I suppose he had his reasons for stating many things in a provoking way. I’m sure the Lord inspired him in this way to further His will, and we need not always know what that is. I will leave it at that as our topic is “blood atonement”

Well Brigham Young sure appears to have believed it was doctrine. I think his bizarre teachings were NOT (name removed by moderator)ired by the Lord but are proof that he was a false prophet. That is the reason why he is so often quoted by those who disagree with LDS teachings.
Paul G:

If you investigate the behavior of apostates they most likely will not reject or criticize all beliefs but will dishonor the leader ship for moving aware from those beliefs. I believe the Catholic Church as somewhat of an experience with this as well.

that’s too easy an ad hominem. It also doesn’t appear to be true of those who left Mormonism. Using the term apostate is a nice loaded word that seeks to undermine credibility woithout cause. Would it be good for me to call them refugees who escaped from the cult? of course not. Different people leave churches for different reasons and act in different ways as a result.
Paul G:

That may be true but I believe that was his motivation in his remarks

Sheer unfounded speculation! What causes you to assign this motivation to an old dying man?
Paul G:

From your understanding of things, your point is well taken. However, he was not trying to begin a new way of believing, but to replace the current leadership. This opens his comments to suspicion.

This may be a valid statement about Page, or even Rigdon but Law? He appears to have been just wanting Joseph to behave. (which he would not do) Read Todd Compton’s in sacred loneliness for a good look at that from an active LDS trying to put the best face on things. Quinns Mormon heirarchy books, Bushmans works, all of these men who had access to source materials owned (and hidden away) by the LDS church show us that bad things were taught and practiced by the early LDS church and it has been covered up in a 1984ish manner by later LDS. Boyd K. Packer is notorious for his opposition to historical truth.

One thing really bothers me along these lines (although it’s more polygamy related than blood atonement but does speak to LDS leaders veracity) Why did the D&C have a canonized scripture denouncing polygamy as a crime and claiming that it was NOT practiced during the same time period that it WAS being practiced openly?

 

[PaulDupre]

My ex-Wife is a descendant of apostle John W. Taylor, who was plurally married long after the Manifesto. She has a copy of his personal journals, wherein he writes about plural marriages (including his own) being authorized and even commanded by the 1st Presidency and solemnized in Mexico as late as 1901. Here is a good article about it:

lds-mormon.com/mormon_bigamy.shtml?FACTNet

God bless,
Paul

 

[Paul_G]

majick275:

Even the LDS leaders (Dallin Oaks) have admitted that polygamy did NOT end with the manifesto. Read it for yourself, it is NOT a Commandment in the sense of “thus sayeth the Lord” to stop. It is avery “lawyerese” press release type document for the Feds to see and be appeased by. Where else do you see the LDS “prophet” intending to use his influence rather than plainly saying the Lord wants this to end?

If you claim that polygamy is no longer practiced by the LDS church then I agree with you. It is STILL in the standard works though as an eternal principle. (but I digress form this thread badly) my tie in here is the lack of credibility in LDS leaders denials of wrongdoing on the part of the church.

I think the quote that I posted explained the situation regarding the end of polygamy quite clearly. There is no evidence of a cover up, but it was not something that you could draw a line and say everyone separate. The ties that bind human relationships have not changed, it took time for it to completely end. Post your reference to Dallin Oaks that we can determine if his comments support your assertions. Many anti Mormons writers try to twist the donkey’s tail to discredit the leaders of the time, they have only succeeded in persuading themselves and those of like mind.

 

[majick275]

Here is the link :

lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml

I still think the biggest lie though was this:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition)

• “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again.”* (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)

and just to make sure everyone understood what that meant:

“Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again.”
-The Prophet Joseph Smith, May 1, 1838, as quoted in “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p. 119.

not to mention the 12th article of faith. (about obeying the law)
Deliberate lies published as scripture tend to make LDS leaders somewhat low in credibility when they claim that no laws were broken regarding blood atonement or enything else.

The coverups got serious when Jospeh Fielding Smith was the church historian and really got intense when Gordon B. Hinkley became President. (He of the public relations background). You can read the various editions of the history of thce church and the standard works themselves that the LDS church has published and see the revisionist trend for yourself. Quinn and other LDS historians who saw the original documents and published the true history have been disciplined by the LDS church for not being more “faith promoting”. Boyd K. Packer stated that “many things that are true are not very useful”. Now does that sound like an objective view of the facts is going to be allowed?

 

[Paul_G]

I think Brother Oaks says pretty much the same things I said previously. I think his comments are right. I think in your attempt to “proof the leadership of the Church untrustworthy” you have rejected human nature and set a standard that can not be attained by anyone. It is true that LDS people work toward perfecting ourselves, and that will truly be realised when our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ returns and completes our transformation.

Now if we have finished with moral high ground positioning, perhaps Church documentation can be provided, I don’t mean from anti Mormon literature, which reports that one case of this so called “blood atonement” that was carried out, and sanctioned by the first presidency. We are not talking about any instances that may have been carried out by any misguided individual.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Paul G:

Sorry, no I haven’t. Why don’t you post it. What connection to your arguments about “blood atonement” does it have?

The Senate Document is legal testmony concerning “crimes” by LDS church.

The Band Called Danites-Organized to Commit Murder.
That Joseph Smith controlled and organized a murderous band, bound under oath-bound penalties to obey the Church leaders, is acknowledged by the leading men who have left the church, and by some of the leading men of the nation who have evidence of such a band.
…

Speaking of those who reject the commandments of Smith, the Lord is made to say,: “Ye shall curse them and whomsoever ye curse I will curse and ye shall avenge me of my enemies” D. C. 100, 5. Now we will show that a society was formed to kill on command.

…

President Wm. Law.“Smith taught Polygamy, spoiling (robbing) the Gentiles, murder, swindling, lying and many other evils. Joseph Smith told me that he sent a man to kill Governor Boggs-the fellow shot the Governor through a window.” Shook, Origin of Polygamy, page 127

J.C. Bennett says: “Smith told me to sign that certificate or he would make cat-fish bait of me, or deliver me to the Danites for execution.” Ibid. page 58.

David Whitmer: “In June, 1838, at Far West, Mo., a secret organization was formed, Dr. Avard was put in as leader of the band. A certain oath was to be administered to all the brethren to bind them to support the heads of the church in every thing they would teach.” Whitmer’s address. page 27.

Oliver Cowdery said: “Sidney Rigdon influenced the Prophet, Seer and Revelator to the Church of the Latter Day Saints into the formation of a secret band at Far West, committed to depredations upon Gentiles, and the actual assassination of apostates from the church. A society has been organized among them to inflict death upon those who are deemed apostates, with the knowledge and sanction of the first elder.” O. Cowdery’s Defence, Mormon Polygamy by Shook, pages 53-54.

Thomas B. Marsh, President of the Twelve, apostatized and swore, saying: “They have among them a company consisting of true Mormons, called ‘The Danites’ who have taken an oath to support the heads of the church in all things that they say or do, whether right or wrong. I heard the Prophet say: ‘that he would yet tread down his enemies and walk over their dead bodies and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean, and that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahomet to this generation.”

Apostle Orson Hyde, said he knew to be true most of the above statement. La Rue, pages 162-163.
,

W. W. Phelps testified that D. W. Patton said he heard Rigdon say: “If any man attempted to move out of the county, any man seeing him attempt to pack his goods should kill him and haul him aside into the bush and that all the burial he should have should be a Turkey Buzzard’s guts.” La Rue, page 165.

The above testimonies are from those who held the leading positions in the church under Smith, who when they left him swore to the above in the trial at Richmond, Mo., when Smith and others were tried for high treason, Nov. 12th, 1838, and is republished by Rev. La Rue, who was a Reorganized Elder for many years, but left the church because of what he knew.
…

The President of the Reorganized Church, Joseph Smith, and son of the original, Joseph Smith, in attempting to excuse the atrocious crimes and statements made by his father and other leaders of the Danites makes the following statement:

“Whoever counselled or did evil in those times (in Missouri) are responsible personally, therefore; but the church, as such, is no more responsible for it that were the early Christians for Peter’s attempt to kill the High Priest’s servant when he cut off his ear with a sword. The church, as such, should be judged by its authorized doctrines and deeds, and not by the unauthorized sayings or doings of some of its members or ministers.” Blood Atonement, page 44.

“You take great pains to cover up the conditions prevailing which call forth such extreme and in some instances unwise remarks. Conditions in some respects akin to those surrounding the Saints in Missouri in 1838 and 1839, when other unwise remarks were made by members of the leading quorums of the church, but in a sense justifiable and which should be condoned under the trying circumstances that called them forth.” Joseph F. Smith in reply to R. C. Evans in Blood Atonement, page 43.
…

Forty Years In the Mormon Church
WHY I LEFT IT!
by Bishop R.C. Evans, Toronto Canada 1920
biblebelievers.net/Cults/Mormonism/FortyYears/kjcfor06.htm

 

[Paul_G]

Daniel, I’d be interested in reading those proceeding would you post them in their entirety. They may be legal, and we know Senator McCarthy lead a just and truthful inquiry too. I thought this thread was about “blood atonement”.
l

 

[majick275]

Paul G:

I think Brother Oaks says pretty much the same things I said previously. I think his comments are right. I think in your attempt to “proof the leadership of the Church untrustworthy” you have rejected human nature and set a standard that can not be attained by anyone. It is true that LDS people work toward perfecting ourselves, and that will truly be realised when our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ returns and completes our transformation.

Now if we have finished with moral high ground positioning, perhaps Church documentation can be provided, I don’t mean from anti Mormon literature, which reports that one case of this so called “blood atonement” that was carried out, and sanctioned by the first presidency. We are not talking about any instances that may have been carried out by any misguided individual.

what anti-mormon literature? That LDS documents are reproduced or quoted in “ant-mormon” books doesn’t magically make them fraudulent. I would certainly consider D&C 101, verse 4 (1835 edition) “church documentation”. It makes it obvious that the LDS church was living a lie. The talks given by LDS leaders in general conference were published as the Journal of Discoursed BY the LDS church. It is only recently in the “spin era” that these are “hidden away”. I find it interesting that you choose Mconkie as a source of doctrine since so many LDS shy away from him. Waht else did he say about blood atonement?
*But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment.
*Mormon Doctrine, “Blood Atonement,” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, page 92

What did Joseph Fielding Smith say on this?

TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement… man may commit certain grevious sins—according to his light and knowledge—that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone—so far as in his power lies—for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail … And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, Vol. 1, pp. 133-136)

There are many examples like Ramos Anderson or Warren Snow but for sake of space let’s focus a bit more on doctrine.

 

[majick275]

(continued)

A bit more Joseph Fielding Smith:

*Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone as far as possible, in their behalf… In pursuance of and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who willfully 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 *(D. of S., Vol. I, p. 135-136).

Brigham Young’s teachings were still being published as late as 1968:
*“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; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants” *(Deseret News, “Church News,” October 19, 1963, and June 15, 1968).

What did Heber C. Kimball say?

*You hear us talk about it a great deal, and probably many do not believe one word we say, but this people will never, no never, prosper to a high degree until we make a public example of—what? Men, who have been warned and forewarned, but who will associate with the wicked and take a course to commit whoredom, and will strive to lead our daughters and our wives into the society of poor, wicked curses, with a view to gratify their cursed passions; we will take them and slay them before this people. I am talking of those that will persist in this course of iniquity, and not about those who will repent and forsake their sins. Are there men in our midst who will court other men’s wives? Yes, and will take them right to the ungodly for them to seduce, and they will take our daughters and do the same. What are such men worthy of? They are worthy of death, and they will get it.*A Discourse, by Heber C. Kimball, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, January 11, 1857(published in Journal of Discourses Vol. 4, p. 164-181)

Jedediah Grant said:
*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 ease; 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, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye.

You may think that I am not teaching you Bible doctrine, but what says the apostle Paul? 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...Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And 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.

*Remarks by President J. M. Grant, Delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, September 21, 1856 (published in Journal of Discourses Vol. 4, p. 49-51)

A little more Heber C. Kimball:

Jesus said to His disciples, Ye are the salt of the earth, and if salt loses its saving principle, it is then good for nothing but to be cast out.' Instead of reading it just as it is, almost all of you read it as it is not. Jesus meant to say, If you have lost the saving principles, you Twelve Apostles, and you believe in my servants the Twelve, you shall be like unto the salt that has lost its saving principles: it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.’ Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him it is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out, but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out. Journal of Discourses Volume 6:125,126

Dr. Quinn’s works on LDS history are remarkable because, in his position as church historian, He had access to many of the original documents in the vaults that the LDS leaders keep hidden away from the world. He was exed becasue he revealed the truth.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Paul G:

Daniel, I’d be interested in reading those proceeding would you post them in their entirety. They may be legal, and we know Senator McCarthy lead a just and truthful inquiry too. I thought this thread was about “blood atonement”.
l

To my knowledge they are not avilable in electronic form, but are avilable in printed form for about three dollars from Utah Lighthouse ministry.

Danites and blood atonement go hand in hand because it was this band that carried out the murders related to blood atonement doctrine. The Danites were much like the KKK in action for the LDS church.

 

[Paul_G]

Here is the story of the Danites found on the BYU LDS FAQ web site

Following the violence in northwestern Missouri in 1838, the Mormon dissident Sampson Avard, star witness in a court of inquiry weighing evidence against LDS leaders, charged that the Church had organized a band of armed men bound by secret oaths who had engaged in illegal activities against non-Mormon neighbors (Document, pp. 97–108). With the 1841 publication of the court proceedings, Avard´s account became the foundation for all subsequent non-Mormon “Danite” accounts. Thus was born the legend of the Danites.

Though no Danite organization was known in Nauvoo or in Utah, the stereotype persisted, becoming a part of national discussion about Utah and the Latter-day Saints and for decades a staple of dime novels (see Mormons, Image of: in Fiction). By 1900 at least fifty novels had been published in English using the Avard-type Danite to develop story lines of murder, pillage, and conspiracy against common citizens. Arthur Conan Doyle (A Study in Scarlet) created Sherlock Holmes to solve a murder committed by Danites. Zane Grey (Riders of the Purple Sage) and Robert Louis Stevenson (The Dynamiter) were among the authors who found the image of the evil Danites well suited for popular reading audiences who delighted in sensationalism (Cornwall and Arrington). The image became so pervasive that few readers were willing to question the accuracy of such portrayals.

The reality of Danites in Missouri in 1838 is both less and more than the stereotype. Contemporary records suggest something fundamentally different. In October 1838, Albert Perry Rockwood, an LDS resident of Far West, Missouri, wrote in his journal of a public Danite organization that involved the whole Latter-day Saint community. He described in biblical terms companies of tens, fifties, and hundreds (cf. Ex. 18:13–26)—similar to the organization the pioneers later used during the migration to the Great Basin. Here the Danite organization encompassed the full range of activities of a covenant community that viewed itself as a restoration of ancient Israel. Working in groups, with some assigned to defense, others to securing provisions, and still others to constructing dwellings, these Danites served the interests of the whole. This was not the secret organization Avard spoke of; in fact, Rockwood´s letters to friends and family were even more descriptive than his journal (Jessee and Whittaker).

In the fall of 1838, with old settlers in Missouri swearing to drive the Mormons out rather than permit them to become a political majority and with LDS leaders declaring that they would fight before again seeing their rights trampled, northwestern Missouri was in a state of war (see Missouri Conflict). Sparked by an effort to prevent LDS voting, violence erupted in August and soon spread. On both sides, skirmishes involved members of state-authorized militias.Evidence suggests that during this time of fear, clashes, and confusion, Sampson Avard, probably a captain within the public Danite structure and a militia officer, subverted the ideals of both by persuading his men to undertake the criminal activities he later argued were the authorized actions of the whole community.

Encouraged perhaps by the firmly stated intentions of leaders to meet force with force but apparently without their approval, Avard used his Danite and military positions to mold a covert renegade band to avenge anti-Mormon outrages. He succeeded because after weeks of responding to violence with strictly defensive measures, Avard was not alone in feeling that the time for forbearance had passed. Others of the time in late reminiscences recalled that clandestine meetings were held, which were subsequently reported to Joseph Smith, who then denounced Avard, removed him from his official command, and disbanded the maverick body. Though short-lived and unauthorized, this covert organization, thanks to Avard´s distorted and widely publicized testimony, usurped the former usage of “Danites,” and the once honorable appellation became a synonym for officially sanctioned secret lawlessness.
Continued…