Snuffer and Horning discuss Plural Marriage @Short Creek

[Luke]

A law of sacrifice will (has) return, a higher sacrifice, that of a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Obviously, but Joseph clearly stated that animal sacrifices would return at some point.

[Reluctant Watchman]

A law of sacrifice will (has) return, a higher sacrifice, that of a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Obviously, but Joseph clearly stated that animal sacrifices would return at some point.

Someone said something, and that something doesn't align with the BoM. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

[Luke]

A law of sacrifice will (has) return, a higher sacrifice, that of a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Obviously, but Joseph clearly stated that animal sacrifices would return at some point.

Someone said something, and that something doesn't align with the BoM. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

That “someone” being Joseph Smith.

Funny how you seemingly don’t want to explicitly admit that fact

And it doesn’t contradict. In what way can it be interpreted as contradictory?

[Reluctant Watchman]

A law of sacrifice will (has) return, a higher sacrifice, that of a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Obviously, but Joseph clearly stated that animal sacrifices would return at some point.

Someone said something, and that something doesn't align with the BoM. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

That “someone” being Joseph Smith.

Funny how you seemingly don’t want to explicitly admit that fact

And it doesn’t contradict. In what way can it be interpreted as contradictory?

Joseph himself said that if what he taught contradicted the BoM, that he was in the wrong. I don't hang on every word from Joseph.

[Luke]

Obviously, but Joseph clearly stated that animal sacrifices would return at some point.

Someone said something, and that something doesn't align with the BoM. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

That “someone” being Joseph Smith.

Funny how you seemingly don’t want to explicitly admit that fact

And it doesn’t contradict. In what way can it be interpreted as contradictory?

Joseph himself said that if what he taught contradicted the BoM, that he was in the wrong. I don't hang on every word from Joseph.

Then explain how it contradicts the BoM.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Someone said something, and that something doesn't align with the BoM. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

That “someone” being Joseph Smith.

Funny how you seemingly don’t want to explicitly admit that fact

And it doesn’t contradict. In what way can it be interpreted as contradictory?

Joseph himself said that if what he taught contradicted the BoM, that he was in the wrong. I don't hang on every word from Joseph.

Then explain how it contradicts the BoM.

Read my previous post:

Alma 34

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

[Luke]

That “someone” being Joseph Smith.

Funny how you seemingly don’t want to explicitly admit that fact

And it doesn’t contradict. In what way can it be interpreted as contradictory?

Joseph himself said that if what he taught contradicted the BoM, that he was in the wrong. I don't hang on every word from Joseph.

Then explain how it contradicts the BoM.

Read my previous post:

Alma 34

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

So many things you ignore. For instance, where does it say that animal sacrifices will never be performed again? Why the specific reference to the law of Moses and not the pre-Mosaic sacrifices?

Joseph said that those who think that animal sacrifice is no more “don’t understand the Priesthood”. I’ll side with him.

[DesertWonderer2]

snuff·er
/ˈsnəfər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a small hollow metal cone on the end of a handle, used to extinguish a candle by smothering the flame.

Yeah; I’d say that’s about right.

[BuriedTartaria]

snuff·er
/ˈsnəfər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a small hollow metal cone on the end of a handle, used to extinguish a candle by smothering the flame.

Yeah; I’d say that about right.

Snuffing out a dwindling flame? Holy cow

[Reluctant Watchman]

Joseph himself said that if what he taught contradicted the BoM, that he was in the wrong. I don't hang on every word from Joseph.

Then explain how it contradicts the BoM.

Read my previous post:

Alma 34

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

So many things you ignore. For instance, where does it say that animal sacrifices will never be performed again? Why the specific reference to the law of Moses and not the pre-Mosaic sacrifices?

Joseph said that those who think that animal sacrifice is no more “don’t understand the Priesthood”. I’ll side with him.

You believe other things that Joseph never said as well.

[BroJones]

I have a question for those who read Snuffer or Davis:
Do they acknowledge that the "place for the city of Zion," the "center place and a spot for the temple" (central Temple of Zion) is (by revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr.)
Independence, MO ??

(Quoting from D&C 57)

D&C 57 explanation, nice overview:

https://youtu.be/jNTo0ebpcPw

[Chris]

Denver teaches a kind of animal sacrifice will occur at some point in the future…

How in the world does he justify this?

There is a scripture somewhere in the Old Testament that discusses the return of sacrifices (or maybe it's in the New Testament). A core message of Denver's teachings is that a return of the religion Adam practiced is destined to come. Just as we drifted away from the "religion of the Fathers" (the patriarchal fathers of the Old Testament) we will return to the "religion of the fathers". The promises the Lord made to patriarchs in the Old Testament will be vindicated. I don't think he sees it (animal sacrifice) being done by many people. I heard him touch on the subject and the way he discussed it, it sounds like it will be very limited with only a small people set apart for certain roles doing it. Yes, animal sacrifice through the Mosaic law was fulfilled. But Denver believes we will return to the true, authentic, original religion practiced by Adam, and animal sacrifice did have a role there.

As I showed from his statements, he is very considerate of living in peace with animals and not a crazy person pushing animal sacrifice in some cult-ish way. His remarks show he wants people listening to his message to treat animals kindly, without malice, to exercise righteous dominion over them. He takes the scriptures seriously.

In one talk from his Ten Talk series (the one about marriage) Denver explained that when Adam and Eve fell, to drive the point home to Adam of the cost it would take to redeem him though the sacrifice of something else, God had Adam slay the male and female animal of his most favorite animal and make coverings for he and Eve using their fur. This put that animal into extinction and taught Adam a powerful lesson.

Even in Christianity there is speculation based off Biblical verses that animal sacrifice will have a role in the future;

When Christ came he Fullfilled the law. Mosiac law was done away and he introduced a higher law. Other than the last sacrafice that will be done in Israel there will never be another animal sacrafice.

Snuffer is a crazy man, along with Phil and every other offshot that is popping up all over the place.

Stick with the Church Joseph established, never to be torn down or given to another people. The path to eternal life is narrow and can only be found in the House of the Lord by those who hold the keys.... Very soon, after this time of testing the Lord will reveal his arm from heaven and all men shall know this Church is lead by God...... This is the TEST. The Heber C Kimball test referred too.

https://youtu.be/t79CfO7Zn20

[investigator]

When Christ came he Fullfilled the law. Mosiac law was done away and he introduced a higher law. Other than the last sacrafice that will be done in Israel there will never be another animal sacrafice.

Well then, I guess Chris is calling Joseph Smith a liar again..

―Why send Elijah because he holds the Keys of the Authority to administer in all the ordinances of the
priesthood and without the authority is given the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness. It
is a very prevalent opinion that the sacrifices which were offered were entirely consumed, this was not the
case if you read Leviticus [2] Chap [2-3] verses you will observe that the priests took a part as a memorial
and offered it up before the Lord, while the remainder was kept for the benefit maintenance of the priests.
So that the offerings and sacrifices are not all consumed upon the Alter, but the blood is sprinkled and the
fat and certain other portions are consumed These sacrifices as well as every ordinance belonging to the
priesthood will when the temple of the Lord shall be built and the Sons Levi be purified be fully restored
and attended to then all their powers, ramifications, and blessings--this the Sons of Levi shall be purified.
ever was and will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest. Else how
can the restitution of all things spoken of by all the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be
understood that, the law of Moses will be established again with all it rights and variety of ceremonies, this
had never been spoken off by the prophets but those things which existed prior Moses's day viz Sacrifice
will be continued --It may be asked by somewhat necessity for Sacrifice since the great Sacrifice was
offered? In answer to which if Repentance Baptism and faith were necessary to Salvation existed prior to
the days of Christ what necessity for them since that time‖ [This is taken from the only discourse of Joseph
Smith which was written before being delivered. It was given October 5, 1840. The original is in the hand
writing of Robert B. Thompson (a clerk for Joseph Smith); maintained in the LDS Church Archives

Snuffer is a crazy man, along with Phil and every other offshot that is popping up all over the place.

Stick with the Church Joseph established, never to be torn down or given to another people.

Again, Chris tries to pass of another statement as if it were the absolute truth when it is not. The actual statement Chris is referring to is this...

“I have set up the Kingdom, no more to be thrown down forever nor never to be given to another people.”

The comment was given by Dimick B. Huntington in 1878, thirty-five years after it was supposed to have been said by Joseph. The words he attributed to Joseph were: “I have set up the Kingdom, no more to be thrown down forever nor never to be given to another people.” (Joseph Smith’s Quorum of the Anointed: 1842-1845. Editors Devery S. Anderson and Gary James Bergera. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005, p. 4; quoting Undated Statement of Dimick B. Huntington made previously on December, 1878, in Mary Brown Firmage Papers, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.)

The comment cannot be corroborated as to having been actually said by Joseph and is direct opposition to scriptural accounts such as 3Nephi 16:10.

The path to eternal life is narrow and can only be found in the House of the Lord by those who hold the keys.... Very soon, after this time of testing the Lord will reveal his arm from heaven and all men shall know this Church is lead by God...... This is the TEST. The Heber C Kimball test referred too.

Yes His church is led by God and this is how he defines His Church...

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Stick with the Church Joseph established, never to be torn down or given to another people. The path to eternal life is narrow and can only be found in the House of the Lord by those who hold the keys.... Very soon, after this time of testing the Lord will reveal his arm from heaven and all men shall know this Church is lead by God...... This is the TEST. The Heber C Kimball test referred too.

I very much agree with you, yet herein lies the problem. What exists today is not what Joseph established.

[Chris]

When Christ came he Fullfilled the law. Mosiac law was done away and he introduced a higher law. Other than the last sacrafice that will be done in Israel there will never be another animal sacrafice.

Well then, I guess Chris is calling Joseph Smith a liar again..

―Why send Elijah because he holds the Keys of the Authority to administer in all the ordinances of the
priesthood and without the authority is given the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness. It
is a very prevalent opinion that the sacrifices which were offered were entirely consumed, this was not the
case if you read Leviticus [2] Chap [2-3] verses you will observe that the priests took a part as a memorial
and offered it up before the Lord, while the remainder was kept for the benefit maintenance of the priests.
So that the offerings and sacrifices are not all consumed upon the Alter, but the blood is sprinkled and the
fat and certain other portions are consumed These sacrifices as well as every ordinance belonging to the
priesthood will when the temple of the Lord shall be built and the Sons Levi be purified be fully restored
and attended to then all their powers, ramifications, and blessings--this the Sons of Levi shall be purified.
ever was and will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest. Else how
can the restitution of all things spoken of by all the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be
understood that, the law of Moses will be established again with all it rights and variety of ceremonies, this
had never been spoken off by the prophets but those things which existed prior Moses's day viz Sacrifice
will be continued --It may be asked by somewhat necessity for Sacrifice since the great Sacrifice was
offered? In answer to which if Repentance Baptism and faith were necessary to Salvation existed prior to
the days of Christ what necessity for them since that time‖ [This is taken from the only discourse of Joseph
Smith which was written before being delivered. It was given October 5, 1840. The original is in the hand
writing of Robert B. Thompson (a clerk for Joseph Smith); maintained in the LDS Church Archives

Snuffer is a crazy man, along with Phil and every other offshot that is popping up all over the place.

Stick with the Church Joseph established, never to be torn down or given to another people.

Again, Chris tries to pass of another statement as if it were the absolute truth when it is not. The actual statement Chris is referring to is this...

“I have set up the Kingdom, no more to be thrown down forever nor never to be given to another people.”

The comment was given by Dimick B. Huntington in 1878, thirty-five years after it was supposed to have been said by Joseph. The words he attributed to Joseph were: “I have set up the Kingdom, no more to be thrown down forever nor never to be given to another people.” (Joseph Smith’s Quorum of the Anointed: 1842-1845. Editors Devery S. Anderson and Gary James Bergera. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005, p. 4; quoting Undated Statement of Dimick B. Huntington made previously on December, 1878, in Mary Brown Firmage Papers, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.)

The comment cannot be corroborated as to having been actually said by Joseph and is direct opposition to scriptural accounts such as 3Nephi 16:10.

The path to eternal life is narrow and can only be found in the House of the Lord by those who hold the keys.... Very soon, after this time of testing the Lord will reveal his arm from heaven and all men shall know this Church is lead by God...... This is the TEST. The Heber C Kimball test referred too.

Yes His church is led by God and this is how he defines His Church...

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

I guess you missed the part where i said except for when the Sons of Levi offer a last offering. There is nothing in josephs comment that says there will be multiple.

[Wolfwoman]

I have a question for those who read Snuffer or Davis:
Do they acknowledge that the "place for the city of Zion," the "center place and a spot for the temple" (central Temple of Zion) is (by revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr.)
Independence, MO ??

(Quoting from D&C 57)

D&C 57 explanation, nice overview:

https://youtu.be/jNTo0ebpcPw

I think Snuffer says that would have been the place for the city of Zion, back in the day, if the saints had succeeded in bringing forth Zion. But the saints failed to bring forth Zion in that place. So things change. Then they had a chance in Nauvoo, but failed again. Zion is going to be established in the "everlasting hills", which doesn't describe Missouri, but does describe the rocky mountains.

[creator]

I believe the concept is that Zion would cover a huge part of the United States with the centerplace, or seat of government, near independence Missouri. And the Church centered in the Rocky Mountains, the New Jerusalem. The law from Zion and the Word from the New Jerusalem.

[thaabit]

I believe the concept is that Zion would cover a huge part of the United States with the centerplace, or seat of government, near independence Missouri. And the Church centered in the Rocky Mountains, the New Jerusalem. The law from Zion and the Word from the New Jerusalem.

In re:

And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
(2 Nephi 12:3)

66 And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God;
67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
(Doctrine and Covenants 45:66–67)

Wouldn't Zion be the New Jerusalem on this continent and then the old Jerusalem in Israel?

[Wolfwoman]

I believe the concept is that Zion would cover a huge part of the United States with the centerplace, or seat of government, near independence Missouri. And the Church centered in the Rocky Mountains, the New Jerusalem. The law from Zion and the Word from the New Jerusalem.

In re:

And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
(2 Nephi 12:3)

66 And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God;
67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
(Doctrine and Covenants 45:66–67)

Wouldn't Zion be the New Jerusalem on this continent and then the old Jerusalem in Israel?

That's my understanding.

[creator]

I've seen some express that the New Jerusalem was Salt Lake City, because the LDS were/are the new covenant people, and that the old Jerusalem/Israel is not relevant. That could be completely wrong. But I thought it was interesting.

I personally have a different perspective than both of these ideas, and especially a very different timeline.

[pjbrownie]

To be honest, I find it a desecration of holy things to reimplement this practice.

That's totally fine. I respect that. I'm not saying I'm correct here. I'm only going to reply to show the Biblical basis for some people thinking a return of this practice will come. People who do see a Biblical basis for a return of animal sacrifice at some point in the future point to a few Biblical passages, but largely to the Book of Ezekiel saying it will be done in an important temple during the Millenium. But the information I'm sharing here is Christian and it does not have the Book of Mormon as an added guide, which you quoted from, to defend your point of view that animal sacrifices are completely done. I'm just trying to explain why some think there will be a return of the practice under the guidance of servants from God.



There are several passages in the Old Testament that clearly indicate animal sacrifice will be re-instituted during the millennial kingdom. Some passages mention it in passing as the topic of the millennial kingdom is discussed, passages like Isaiah 56:6-8; Zechariah 14:16; and Jeremiah 33:15-18.

The passage that is the most extensive, giving the greatest detail, is Ezekiel 43:18-46:24. It should be noted that this is part of a greater passage dealing with the millennial kingdom, a passage that begins with Ezekiel 40. In Ezekiel 40, the Lord begins to give details of the temple that will exist during the millennial kingdom, a temple that dwarfs all other temples previously built, even Herod’s temple that was quite large, which existed during the earthly ministry of Christ.

After giving details concerning the size and appearance of the temple and the altar, the Lord then begins to give detailed instruction as to the animal sacrifices that will be offered (Ezekiel 43:18-27). In chapter 44, the Lord gives instructions as to who will be offering sacrifices to the Lord. The Lord states that all of the Levites will not be offering blood and fat to the Lord due to previous sin; it will be those from the lineage of Zadok (verse 15). Chapters 45 and 46 continue to mention that animal sacrifices will be made.

The primary objection made to the idea of animal sacrifices returning during the millennial kingdom is that Christ has come and offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, and there is therefore no need to sacrifice animals for sin. However, it must be remembered that animal sacrifice never removed the sin that spiritually separated a person from the Lord.

https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html

I’m sure I could probably find some beneficial things in Denver’s writings, but this is certainly a red flag. I tend to take a lot of the OT w/ a grain of salt.

Denver’s words seem to align with what Joseph taught. Joseph said:
“[Jehovah] continued to [Noah] the keys, the covenants, the power and the glory, with which he blessed Adam at the beginning; and the offering of sacrifice, which also shall be continued at the last time; for all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by [p.211] the Priesthood, under the directions and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation, therefore all things had under the authority of the Priesthood at any former period, shall be had again, bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of all the Holy Prophets; then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable offering to the Lord. 'And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord.' (See Malachi 3:3).

It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e., the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus] was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets . . . .

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the [p.212] powers of the Melchisedic Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the holy Prophets be brought to pass? It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.” (History of the Church 4:211).

I've debated this elsewhere with others. If you at the restoration of the Levitical sacrifice it doesn't mention animal sacrifice, just a sacrifice acceptable to the Lord. That has caused lots of speculation about what type of sacrifices would qualify that wouldn't be an animal one

[SeekWisdom]

That's totally fine. I respect that. I'm not saying I'm correct here. I'm only going to reply to show the Biblical basis for some people thinking a return of this practice will come. People who do see a Biblical basis for a return of animal sacrifice at some point in the future point to a few Biblical passages, but largely to the Book of Ezekiel saying it will be done in an important temple during the Millenium. But the information I'm sharing here is Christian and it does not have the Book of Mormon as an added guide, which you quoted from, to defend your point of view that animal sacrifices are completely done. I'm just trying to explain why some think there will be a return of the practice under the guidance of servants from God.



There are several passages in the Old Testament that clearly indicate animal sacrifice will be re-instituted during the millennial kingdom. Some passages mention it in passing as the topic of the millennial kingdom is discussed, passages like Isaiah 56:6-8; Zechariah 14:16; and Jeremiah 33:15-18.

The passage that is the most extensive, giving the greatest detail, is Ezekiel 43:18-46:24. It should be noted that this is part of a greater passage dealing with the millennial kingdom, a passage that begins with Ezekiel 40. In Ezekiel 40, the Lord begins to give details of the temple that will exist during the millennial kingdom, a temple that dwarfs all other temples previously built, even Herod’s temple that was quite large, which existed during the earthly ministry of Christ.

After giving details concerning the size and appearance of the temple and the altar, the Lord then begins to give detailed instruction as to the animal sacrifices that will be offered (Ezekiel 43:18-27). In chapter 44, the Lord gives instructions as to who will be offering sacrifices to the Lord. The Lord states that all of the Levites will not be offering blood and fat to the Lord due to previous sin; it will be those from the lineage of Zadok (verse 15). Chapters 45 and 46 continue to mention that animal sacrifices will be made.

The primary objection made to the idea of animal sacrifices returning during the millennial kingdom is that Christ has come and offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, and there is therefore no need to sacrifice animals for sin. However, it must be remembered that animal sacrifice never removed the sin that spiritually separated a person from the Lord.

https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html

I’m sure I could probably find some beneficial things in Denver’s writings, but this is certainly a red flag. I tend to take a lot of the OT w/ a grain of salt.

Denver’s words seem to align with what Joseph taught. Joseph said:
“[Jehovah] continued to [Noah] the keys, the covenants, the power and the glory, with which he blessed Adam at the beginning; and the offering of sacrifice, which also shall be continued at the last time; for all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by [p.211] the Priesthood, under the directions and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation, therefore all things had under the authority of the Priesthood at any former period, shall be had again, bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of all the Holy Prophets; then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable offering to the Lord. 'And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord.' (See Malachi 3:3).

It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e., the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus] was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets . . . .

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the [p.212] powers of the Melchisedic Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the holy Prophets be brought to pass? It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.” (History of the Church 4:211).

I've debated this elsewhere with others. If you at the restoration of the Levitical sacrifice it doesn't mention animal sacrifice, just a sacrifice acceptable to the Lord. That has caused lots of speculation about what type of sacrifices would qualify that wouldn't be an animal one

What do you make of what BigT provided earlier from the Joseph Smith Papers seemingly referring to animal sacrifice? The parts of the quote (more specifically the highlighted portion) I’m referring to are below:

“So that the offerings and sacrifices are not all consu med upon the Alter, but the blood is sprinkled and the fat and certain other portions are consumed These sacrifices as well as every ordinance belonging to the priesthood will when the temple of the Lord shall be built <and the sons [of] Levi be purified> be fully restored and attended to then the Sons of Levi shall be purified. all their powers raniffications [ramifications], and blessings— this ever was did and will be exist when the powers of the Melchisadc Priesthood are sufficiently
manifest. #! else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by all the Holy prophets be brought to pass be brought to pass, #" It is not to be understood that, the law of Moses will be fully established again with all its rights and <variety of ceremonies> ceremonies <this has never been spoken off by the prophets> but those things which existed prior to Mose’s day viz sacrifice, will be continued— It may be asked by some what necess sity for Sacrifice since the great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which if Repentance Baptism and faith were neccessary to Salvation <existed> prior to the days of christ what necessity for them since that
time ## ——
The priesthood has descended in a regular line from Father to Son through their succeeding generations“

Link: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... er-1840/17

[Alexander]

A law of sacrifice will (has) return, a higher sacrifice, that of a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Obviously, but Joseph clearly stated that animal sacrifices would return at some point.

William Stafford, who lived about a mile and a half from the Smiths, spoke of Joe Smith Jr.'s blood sacrifices:
"Old Joseph and one of the boys came to me one day, and said that Joseph Jr. had discovered some very remarkable and valuable treasures, which could be procured only in one way. That way, was as follows: - That a black sheep should be taken to the ground where the treasures were concealed - that after cutting its throat, it should be led around in a circle while bleeding. This being done, the wrath of the evil spirit would be appeased: the treasures could then be obtained, and my share of them was to be four fold. To gratify my curiosity, I let them have a large fat sheep. They afterwards informed me, that the sheep was killed pursuant to commandment; but as there was some mistake in the process, it did not have the desired effect. This, I believe, is the only time they ever made money-digging a profitable business" (Howe, pp. 238-239; also reproduced in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996, vol. 2, pp. 59-61).

BYU Professor M. Wilford Poulson noted Wallace Miner's saying, "I once asked Stafford if Smith did steal a sheep from him. He said no, not exactly. He said, he did miss a black sheep, but soon Joseph came and admitted he took it for sacrifice but he was willing to work for it. He made wooden sap buckets to fully pay for it" (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1970, p. 249)

C. R. Stafford testified about the same incident: "Jo Smith, the prophet, told my uncle, William Stafford, he wanted a fat, black sheep. He said he wanted to cut its throat and make it walk in a circle three times around and it would prevent a pot of money from leaving" (Naked Truths About Mormonism, January 1888, page 3; also in Vogel, vol. 2, p.197)

Dr. William D. Purple, a respected Bainbridge physician and a personal friend of Justice Neely, took notes at Joe Smith's 1826 court trial. Justice Albert Neely listed the case as "Joseph Smith The Glass looker--March 20, 1826." Some of Dr. Purple's recollections of the trial were printed in the Chenango Union. In a snippet from that article, one notes that Smith lured Josiah Stowell into sacrificing a lamb to an "evil spirit." During the blood sacrifice to an evil spirit, Smith sprinkled the lamb's blood to make a magic circle, just as he had done with the black lamb from William Stafford's flock.

Dr. Purple wrote,

"In this emergency the fruitful mind of Smith was called on to devise away to obtain the prize. Mr. Stowell went to his flock and selected a fine vigorous lamb, and resolved to sacrifice it to the demon spirit who guarded the coveted treasure. Shortly after the venerable Deacon might be seen on his knees at prayer near the pits while Smith, with a lantern in one hand to dispel the midnight darkness, might be seen making a circle it around the pits sprinkling the flowing blood from the lamb upon the ground, as a propitiation to the spirit that thwarted them" (Chenango Union, Norwich, NY, May 3, 1877).

Hiel Lewis affirmed that Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the same enchanting spirit that directed Smith to make dog sacrifices.Dr. Quinn wrote, "A cousin of Smith's wife Emma reported that Smith 'translated the book of Mormon by means of the same peep stone, and under the same inspiration that directed his enchantments and dog sacrifices; it was all by the same spirit' (H. Lewis 1879)" (Quinn, 1987 edition, p. 144).

When Joe Smith started his church in 1830, the local Palmyra newspaper Reflector ran an article of the Book of Mormon and Joe Smith's animal sacrifices (Dogberry, pseud. [Abner Cole] "Book of Pukei," The Reflector, Palmyra, NY, June 12, 1830, p. 36).

Early Mormon convert Emily M. Austin recalled Joe Smith's urging animal sacrifice, ". . . in the time of their digging for money and not finding it attainable, Joseph Smith told them there was a charm on the pots of money, and if some animal was killed and the blood sprinkled around the place, then they could get it. So they killed a dog and tried this method of obtaining the precious metal. . . . Alas! how vivid was the expectation when the blood of poor Tray was used to take off the charm, and after all to find their mistake . . . and now they were obliged to give up in despair (Mormonism; or Life Among the Mormons, 1882; Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials" Westminster Theological Journal, 1974, part 2, p. 125).

Justice Joel King Noble, who tried Smith in an 1830 trail in Colesville, N.Y., related in a letter that when Joe Smith and others were digging "for a Chest of money," they acquired a black dog and offered it as "a sacrifice [blo]od Sprinkled prayer made at the time (no money obtained) the above Sworn to on trial. . . ." (Letter of Justice Noble, dated March 8, 1842, photographically reproduced in Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials," p. 134).

[Reluctant Watchman]

Black sheep for dinner... anyone?

[pjbrownie]

Funny how this topic has turned more into a debate about whether animal sacrifices will return or not.

Anyone have any thoughts on the talks?