Posted on 11/08/2013 11:51:18 AM PST by greyfoxx39
Edited on 11/08/2013 11:53:11 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Mormon church stands to own nearly 2 percent of Florida by completing a deal to buy most of the real estate of the St. Joe Co. for more than a half-billion dollars.
The megapurchase was announced jointly Thursday by a corporate representative of church, which owns the nearly 295,000-acre Deseret Ranches in Central Florida, and by the real-estate and timber business, which has built several communities along the Panhandle coast.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
These are milquetoast mormons...in the old days when mormons didn’t want to hear the truth, they would shut you up forever......
BLOOD ATONEMENT
AS early as 1853 intimations of the doctrine that an offending member might be put out of the way were given from the Tabernacle pulpit. Orson Hyde, on April 9 of that year, spoke, in the form of a parable, of the fate of a wolf that a shepherd discovered in his flock of sheep, saying that, if let alone, he would go off and tell the other wolves, and they would come in; “whereas, if the first should meet with his just deserts, he could not go back and tell the rest of his hungry tribe to come and feast themselves on the flock. If you say the priesthood, or authorities of the church here, are the shepherd, and the church is the flock, you can make your own application of this figure.”
In September, 1856, there was a notable service in the bowery in Salt Lake City at which several addresses were made. Heber C. Kimball urged repentance, and told the people that Brigham Young’s word was “the word of God to this people.” Then Jedediah M. Grant first gave open utterance to a doctrine that has given the Saints, in late years, much trouble to explain, and the carrying out of which in Brigham Young’s days has required many a Mormon denial. This is, what has been called in Utah the doctrine of “blood atonement,” and what in reality was the doctrine of human sacrifice.
Grant declared that some persons who had received the priesthood committed adultery and other abominations, “get drunk, and wallow in the mire and filth.” “I say,” he continued, “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,
——— BLOOD ATONEMENT 455 ———
for water will not do; their sins are too deep for that.”1 He explained that he was only preaching the doctrine of St. Paul, and continued: “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.... If any of you ask, Do I mean you, I answer yes. If any woman asks, Do I mean her, I answer yes.... We have been trying long enough with these people, and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word, but in deed.”2
Brigham Young, who followed Grant, said that he would explain how judgment would be “laid to the line.” “There are sins,” he explained, “that men commit, for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world nor 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 for their sins... I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people
_________________________
1Elder C. W. Penrose made an explanation of the view taken by the church at that time, in an address in Salt Lake City on October 12, 1884, that was published in a pamphlet entitled “Blood Atonement as taught by Leading Elders.” This was deemed necessary to meet the criticisms of this doctrine. He pleaded misrepresentation of the Saints’ position, and defined it as resting on Christ’s atonement, and on the belief that that atonement would suffice only for those who have fellowship with Him. He quoted St. Paul as authority for the necessity of blood shedding (Hebrews ix. 22), and Matthew xii. 31, 32, and Hebrews x. 26, to show that there are sins, like blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which will not be forgiven through the shedding of Christ’s blood. He also quoted 1 John v. 16 as showing that the apostle and Brigham Young were in agreement concerning “sins unto death,” just as Young and the apostle agreed about delivering men unto Satan that their spirits might be saved through the destruction of their flesh (1 Corinthians v. 5). Having justified the teaching to his satisfaction, he proceeded to challenge proof that any one had ever paid the penalty, coupling with this a denial of the existence of Danites.
Elder Hyde, in his “Mormonism,” says (p. 179): “There are several men now living in Utah whose lives are forfeited by Mormon law, but spared for a little time by Mormon policy. They are certain to be killed, and they know it. They are only allowed to live while they add weight and influence to Mormonism, and, although abundant opportunities are given them for escape, they prefer to remain. So strongly are they infatuated with their religion that they think their salvation depends on their continued obedience, and their ‘blood being shed by the servants of God.’ Adultery is punished by death, and it is taught, unless the adulterer’s blood be shed, he can have no remission for this sin. Believing this firmly, there are men who have confessed this crime to Brigham, and asked him to have them killed. Their superstitious fears make life a burden to them, and they would commit suicide were not that also a crime.”
2 Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, pp. 49, 50.
———— 456 THE STORY OF THE MORMONS ————
off from the earth, that you consider it a strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.”
That these were not the mere expressions of a sudden impulse is shown by the fact that Young expounded this doctrine at even greater length a year later. Explaining what Christ meant by loving our neighbors as ourselves, he said: “Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant.... 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.”1
Stenhouse relates, as one of the “few notable cases that have properly illustrated the blood atonement doctrine,” that one of the wives of an elder who was sent on a mission broke her marriage vows during his absence. On his return, during the height of the “Reformation,” she was told that “she could not reach the circle of the gods and goddesses unless her blood was shed,” and she consented to accept the punishment. Seating herself, therefore, on her husband’s knee, she gave him a last kiss, and he then drew a knife across her throat. “That kind and loving husband still lives near Salt Lake City (1874), and preaches occasionally with great zeal.”2
John D. Lee, who says that this doctrine was “justified by all the people,” gives full particulars of another instance. Among the Danish converts in Utah was Rosmos Anderson, whose wife had been a widow with a grown daughter. Anderson desired to marry his step-daughter also, and she was quite willing; but a member of the Bishop’s council wanted the girl for his wife, and he was influential enough to prevent Anderson from getting the necessary consent from the head of the church. Knowing the professed horror of the church toward the crime of adultery, Anderson and the young woman, at one of the meetings during the “Reformation,” confessed their guilt of that crime, thinking that in this way they would secure permission to marry. But,
_________________________
1 Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, pp. 219, 220.
2 “Rocky Mountain Saints,” p. 470.
——— BLOOD ATONEMENT 457 ———
while they were admitted to rebaptism on their confession, the coveted permit was not issued and they were notified that to offend would be to incur death. Such a charge was very soon laid against Anderson (not against the girl), and the same council, without hearing him, decided that he must die. Anderson was so firm in the Mormon faith that he made no remonstrance, simply asking half a day for preparation. His wife provided clean clothes for the sacrifice, and his executioners dug his grave. At midnight they called for him, and, taking him to the place, allowed him to kneel by the grave and pray. Then they cut his throat, “and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.” His wife, obeying instructions, announced that he had gone to California.1
As an illustration of the opportunity which these times gave a polygamous priesthood to indulge their tastes, may be told the story of “the affair at San Pete.” Bishop Warren Snow of Manti, San Pete County, although the husband of several wives, desired to add to his list a good-looking young woman in that town When he proposed to her, she declined the honor, informing him that she was engaged to a younger man. The Bishop argued with her on the ground of her duty, offering to have her lover sent on a mission, but in vain. When even the girl’s parents failed to gain her consent, Snow directed the local church authorities to command the young man to give her up. Finding him equally obstinate, he was one evening summoned to attend a meeting where only trusted members were present. Suddenly the lights were put out, he was beaten and tied to a bench, and Bishop Snow himself castrated him with a bowie knife. In this condition he was left to crawl to some haystacks, where he lay until discovered “The young man regained his health,” says Lee, “but has been an idiot or quiet lunatic ever since, and is well known by hundreds of Mormons or Gentiles in Utah.”2 And the Bishop married the girl. Lee gives Young credit for being very “mad” when he learned of this incident, but the Bishop was not even deposed.3
_________________________
1 “Mormonism Unveiled,” p. 282.
2 Ibid., p. 285.
3 Stenhouse quotes the following as showing that the San Pete outrage was scarcely concealed by the Mormon authorities: “I was at a Sunday meeting, in the spring of 1857, in Provo, when the news of the San Pete incident 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.’” “Rocky Mountain Saints,” p. 302.
In short, to all you who think that all mormons are white as snow, they are no better than any other group of people...they just wear a false face to the world, and when these wonderful people are doing “good” deeds among you, keep one thing in mind: They want your membership...AND your money...because they are conditioned that “Every member is a missionary”.
Gee, sounds like members of just about any other religion you can think of. There are rotten apples in every religious barrel. You choose to vilify only your former religion even though there are rotten hypocritical people in every religion. I fully expect you won’t ever be able to get rid of this fixation based on your perceived experiences.
Merry Christmas to you and yours..
Why not?
I'm posting facts about MormonISM.
This should entitle me to at least a LITTLE bit of respect.
...led by spineless weasels from high above Temple Square.
Yup; until you lift the covers and see what is going on under the sheets.
Oh??
Hmmm, I sense quite a disconnect between this comment and your screen name.
But I guess we're supposed to just accept that it's ok as long as you're busy impugning the character of people you don't know simply because they post things you disagree with?
Ahhh, the brave new FR, where Alinsky acolytes go to play...
Here’s a little lesson for you okay? When someone calls someone a “hater” simply because they disagree with the other’s comments, they are using a liberal tactic. One straight from Alinsky. Similar to Godwin’s Law.
If you’re not willing to take a helping of what you’re trying to dish out, might want to think about keeping your trap shut in the first place.
So I’ll just leave it at that.
I take you at your word that you will just leave your comments to me as is. Of course that is a futile hope as I did not pull your chain in the first place. Read from the beginning of this thread and learn your own lesson for the day.
Interesting that the posts that are full of hate are those from mormonism defenders!
It's humorous that these posters are unable to counter the FACTS about mormonism being brought to light, and fall back on their claimed superiority to attack the messengers. These are the same people who chose to ignore the fact that the mormons have 75,000 missionaries going worldwide knocking on the doors of Christians, attacking Christianity and proclaiming to have "the one and only true living church".
Hypocrites!
Perhaps those defenders of mormonism should consider the words of FR owner Jim Robinson: "I’ll put it this way. I don’t believe a single word written by Joseph Smith or his followers when it departs from the Word of God as recorded in the Holy Bible and I’m not thrilled about people coming here to preach some false gospel from the pages of Free Republic."
“This should entitle me to at least a LITTLE bit of respect.”
Nada, none.
And in the spirit of ecumenism...
“Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 547, 1966)
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that some Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost.”
(Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 7)
“[Jesus Christ] was willing to make payment because of his great love for mankind, and he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh.”
(Messages for Exaltation, For the Sunday Schools of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Doctrine Class, pages 378-379, 1967)
Orson Pratt
“God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Hence, the Father saith concerning him, ‘Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ We are informed in the first chapter of Luke, that Mary was chosen by the Father as a choice virgin, through whom He begat Jesus. The angel said unto the Virgin Mary, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore, also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ After the power of the Highest had overshadowed Mary, and she had by that means conceived, she related the circumstance to her cousin Elizabeth in the following words: ‘He that is Mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name.’ It seems from this relation that the Holy Ghost accompanied ‘the Highest’ when He overshadowed the Virgin Mary and begat Jesus; and from this circumstance some have supposed that the body of Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost without the instrumentality of the immediate presence of the Father. There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to sanctify her, and make her holy, and prepare her to endure the glorious presence of “the Highest’, that when ‘He’ should ‘overshadow’ her she might conceive, being filled with the Holy Ghost; hence the angel said, as recorded in Matthew, ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;’ that is, the Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only Begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones; whereas, both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father—the spirit having been begotten in heaven many ages before the tabernacle was begotten upon the earth.
“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father; we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for His own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.
“As God the Father begat the fleshly body of Jesus, so He, before the world began, begat his spirit. As the body required an earthly Mother, so his spirit required a heavenly Mother. As God associated in the capacity of a husband with the earthly mother, so likewise he associated in the same capacity with the heavenly one; earthly things being in the likeness of heavenly things; and that which is temporal being in the likeness of that which is eternal; or, in other words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of the laws of generation in heaven” (The Seer, pp. 158-9; cf. B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, vol 2, p. 270)
“We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as His Only Begotten in this world.” (The Seer, pp. 172-3)
It reads in part: (quoting Joseph Smith)
“I asked which of the sects was right and which I should join.
I was answered I must join none of them; they are all wrong; they teach for doctrine the commandment of men;
I received a promise that the fullness of the gospel would at some future time be known to me”
It also says that the Book of MORMON contains that fullness.
Can ANY of you FR Mormons direct me to those passages??
SURELY you can; as you seem to have a LOT of answers for other folks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
