LDS Freedom Forum

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 11:24 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑March 15th, 2023, 2:24 pm I asked for your source and all you gave me is opinion…

You didn't ask me for a source, you simply said: "I would love to read his direct words or see the direct proof..."

i think I need a shot of jack to go along with that spin ^.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:22 pm

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:14 pm

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 11:50 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 11:34 am So this dispensation is damned because we haven’t gotten baptized?

We, and all of Christianity, are offered a preparatory baptism. That will suffice until we are offered a baptism under the fulness.

That's all anyone has to do. Hold on faithfully to what you have received and you will eventually receive more.

Isn’t this a theme with 99% of Christianity?

I don't know about that, but I know all anyone can do, is to do the best with what they have and always seek more.

Your way sounds too easy.

Jeremiah 23
16 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
17 They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.
18 For who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:42 pm

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:22 pm

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:14 pm

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 11:50 am
We, and all of Christianity, are offered a preparatory baptism. That will suffice until we are offered a baptism under the fulness.

That's all anyone has to do. Hold on faithfully to what you have received and you will eventually receive more.

Isn’t this a theme with 99% of Christianity?

I don't know about that, but I know all anyone can do, is to do the best with what they have and always seek more.

Your way sounds too easy.

Jeremiah 23
16 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
17 They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.
18 For who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?

Ok, I have to have clarification here. How it the heck do you transition to talking about prophets?

We were never talking about prophets. In what context do you bring in prophets.

By the way, his yoke is EASY and his burden is light. It's supposed to sound easy.

FrankOne wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:33 pm i think I need a shot of jack to go along with that spin ^.

Frank, how is that a spin. He didn't ask me, he simply said he would love to see it. His loving to see it includes every flight of fancy under the sun.

Besides, knowing how the scriptures use the term new and everlasting covenant is something we all should have studied long ago.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:47 pm

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:42 pm

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:22 pm

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 12:14 pm

Isn’t this a theme with 99% of Christianity?

I don't know about that, but I know all anyone can do, is to do the best with what they have and always seek more.

Your way sounds too easy.

Jeremiah 23
16 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
17 They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.
18 For who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?

Ok, I have to have clarification here. How it the heck do you transition to talking about prophets?

We were never talking about prophets. In what context do you bring in prophets.

By the way, his yoke is EASY and his burden is light. It's supposed to sound easy.

Why am I talking about prophets?

Jeremiah 23

21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.

If the prophets are saying almost the exact same thing you are saying then it is wrong. Wrong can mean it is only one part of the equation or half the truth. You can not get very far with only the wick in your lamp wet with oil, you need to fill the vessel.

To whom is the “yoke easy and burden is light” to the ones who truly take his yoke. The rest are damned. God doesn’t dam man, man dams himself and he just doesn’t remove the stumbling blocks.

Isaiah 24
5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

This is applicable, anyone who desires to understand the lord should ask him why, what is missing.

A TBM can say that everything you claim is taught and in the church today.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 11:58 am "Wokeites", don't have a monopoly on things they say or do. Are you going to stop using toilet paper because woke people wipe with toilet paper?

Clearly two different things—what a silly comparison.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 11:58 am JS allowed women to bless and anoint with oil. BY changed that, as if he knew better than JS. That my friend is sexism. That is sexism in any universe, with or without woke people.

It's very telling how you never defend the prophet Joseph in his decision to empower women.

Everything here is a complete and utter lie.

1. I have defended Joseph’s teachings on this subject on this forum numerous times. (This is actually a standard Fundamentalist teaching).

2. I have encouraged women in real life to exercise the power given to them in this right and shown them how to do it—and witnessed great power.

3. Brigham did not stop them doing such at all. You hatred for the man once again shows with the utterly unsubstantiated drivel which you continually spout. Let Brigham speak for himself:

• “I want a wife that can take care of my children when I am away, who can pray, lay on hands, anoint with oil, and baffle the enemy; and this is a spiritual wife.” (Brigham Young, 9 April 1844, DHC 6:322)

And here’s a few other quotes from the Utah era showing that they fully accepted what Joseph set forth on this matter:

• ​“I say that every man and woman who will live their religion, be humble, and be dictated by the Holy Ghost, the spirit of prophecy will be upon them.
  Some of you, ladies, that go abroad from house to house, blessing the sick, having your little circles of women come together, why are you troubling yourselves to bless and lay your hands on women, and prophesy on them, if you do not believe the principle?” (Heber C. Kimball, 23 August 1857, JD 5:176)

• “I was also ordained and set apart under the hand of Joseph Smith the Prophet to administer to the sick and comfort the sorrowful. Several other sisters were also ordained and set apart to administer in these holy ordinances. * * * President Joseph Smith had great faith in the sisters’ labors, and ever sought to encourage them in the performance of the duties which pertained to these Societies, which he said were not only for benevolent purposes and spiritual improvement, but were actually to save souls. And my testimony to my sisters is that I have seen many demonstrations of the power and blessing of God through the administration of the sisters, but they should be ever humble, for through great humility comes the blessing. The Lord remembers his daughters and owns and acknowledges, in a perceptible manner, those who are striving to be faithful. I could say much to my sisters on this subject, for it is one in which I am deeply interested. * * * The Father has great blessings in store for his daughters; fear not, my sisters, but trust in God, live your religion and teach it to your children.” (Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Autobiography, as quoted in Women’s Exponent, Vol. 7, No. 12, pg. 91, 15 November 1878)

• “PRESCINDIA HUNTINGTON, the daughter of William and Zina Baker Huntington, was born Sept. 7, 1810, at Watertown, N. Y. At the age of 33 she was married and sealed to the Prophet [Joseph Smith] in Nauvoo. Her brother, Dimmick, performed the ceremony. After the Prophet’s death, she married Heber and when their son, Joseph Smith, was born, she said of him, ‘He was like an Isaac of old to me. I had been favored of the Lord to have a son born in the new and everlasting covenant and I looked upon it as a great blessing and honour. My son grew to manhood under gospel influence and I thank God that He gave me so good and noble a son.’ Prescindia was set apart by one of the Apostles and blessed with a special gift of healing. She used this divine power successfully in her duties as midwife and her daily administerings to the sick. She was indeed a venerable woman who led a full and useful life.” (The Life of Heber C. Kimball, 2nd Ed., pg. 420)

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 11:47 am

simpleton wrote: ↑March 15th, 2023, 2:40 pm BY did no such a thing, you've got it all wrong.
Infact BY took it in the exact direction JS/God told him to, and into every single item of doctrine you like to &!@$# about about.

So I have it all wrong because you say so? Is that how it works? When your emotional investiture is threatened you are automatically entitled to be able to throw down the emotional 'get out of jail free' card and thereby are relieved of any obligation to respond with facts or intellect.

Please, back up your statement that Joseph told BY to teach those things.

Where are the quotes from Joseph showing that he taught BY to stop allowing women to bless the sick?

Where are the quotes from Joseph showing that he taught BY to stop giving blacks the priesthood and ban them from saving ordinances?

Where are the quotes from Joseph showing that he taught BY to stop teaching monogamy and start teaching the abomination known as polygamy?

Where did he teach BY to teach blood atonement? Is there a revelation from the Lord about blood atonement or should we stick to the scriptures that teach that only the blood of a God is sufficient?

Also, do you care to explain how BY became the richest man in Salt Lake? Where did that money come from, if not from tithing? Why is history void of BY out earning a living at his trade? Why does no one talk about how he set up his shop and worked extra hours to buy a second mansion in St George and to feed all his 50 plus wives? I know why, because it never happened. He helped himself to tithing funds.

Where oh where.... ask yourself that question... how about Joseph taught Brigham man to man, without you or I being there. And you only believe what you choose to believe whether they are facts or not.
And all of the above "doctrines" that are stuck in your craw, they suit me just fine. Every single one of them.

simpleton wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 5:18 am Where oh where.... ask yourself that question... how about Joseph taught Brigham man to man, without you or I being there. And you only believe what you choose to believe whether they are facts or not.
And all of the above "doctrines" that are stuck in your craw, they suit me just fine. Every single one of them.

That's the problem. BY's changes contradict scripture and all we have is claims of Joseph teaching things in secret. That's not how the Lord operates.

Is that really the pattern you want to follow. The Lord teaches openly in scripture, but then somehow later contradicts himself through a secret teaching.

Has it ever occurred to you that JS meant what he said publicly and that BY's changes originated with BY?

Luke wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 3:40 pm Let Brigham speak for himself

There is still plenty of evidence that he was sexist, but I do retract what I said about his not allowing women to bless, that was more a Heber J. Grant thing.

I don't hate him, it's definitely a strong dislike though.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:27 pm

simpleton wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 5:18 am Where oh where.... ask yourself that question... how about Joseph taught Brigham man to man, without you or I being there. And you only believe what you choose to believe whether they are facts or not.
And all of the above "doctrines" that are stuck in your craw, they suit me just fine. Every single one of them.

That's the problem. BY's changes contradict scripture and all we have is claims of Joseph teaching things in secret. That's not how the Lord operates.

Is that really the pattern you want to follow. The Lord teaches openly in scripture, but then somehow later contradicts himself through a secret teaching.

Has it ever occurred to you that JS meant what he said publicly and that BY's changes originated with BY?

I've been saying since day one...BY taught what Joseph taught him.

simpleton wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 10:57 pm I've been saying since day one...BY taught what Joseph taught him.

How is it that your response doesn't match what I wrote? It's hard to have a conversation that makes any progress when this happens.

Do you care to address what I wrote; I'll cut and paste it for you: That's the problem. BY's changes contradict scripture and all we have is claims of Joseph teaching things in secret. That's not how the Lord operates.

Is that really the pattern you want to follow. The Lord teaches openly in scripture, but then somehow later contradicts himself through a secret teaching.

Has it ever occurred to you that JS meant what he said publicly and that BY's changes originated with BY?

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 11:47 am

simpleton wrote: ↑March 15th, 2023, 2:40 pm BY did no such a thing, you've got it all wrong.
Infact BY took it in the exact direction JS/God told him to, and into every single item of doctrine you like to &!@$# about about.

So I have it all wrong because you say so? Is that how it works? When your emotional investiture is threatened you are automatically entitled to be able to throw down the emotional 'get out of jail free' card and thereby are relieved of any obligation to respond with facts or intellect.

Please, back up your statement that Joseph told BY to teach those things.

Where are the quotes from Joseph showing that he taught BY to stop allowing women to bless the sick?

Where are the quotes from Joseph showing that he taught BY to stop giving blacks the priesthood and ban them from saving ordinances?

Where are the quotes from Joseph showing that he taught BY to stop teaching monogamy and start teaching the abomination known as polygamy?

Where did he teach BY to teach blood atonement? Is there a revelation from the Lord about blood atonement or should we stick to the scriptures that teach that only the blood of a God is sufficient?

Also, do you care to explain how BY became the richest man in Salt Lake? Where did that money come from, if not from tithing? Why is history void of BY out earning a living at his trade? Why does no one talk about how he set up his shop and worked extra hours to buy a second mansion in St George and to feed all his 50 plus wives? I know why, because it never happened. He helped himself to tithing funds.

It appears that you have made a host of assumptions concerning Brigham Young. I have a much higher opinion of the work which Brigham Young did. He had an insane number of problems to solve in getting the Saints safely out to Utah, and he worked like a madman to do so, and was mostly successful. I have spent a completely ridiculous amount of time studying the lives of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and I have a very high opinion of both of them. For example, whatever you may have heard, Brigham Young was as stoutly against any kind of socialism as was Joseph Smith. They both spoke until they were blue in the face condemning such things. It was always someone else who was promoting these crazy economic experiments (including Lorenzo Snow.).

As I mentioned in a post I entered this day, all the most dastardly deeds with a long-term effect on the church happened by Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow. See

A New Way To Present Church History - The Gradual Gutting Of The Gospel
viewtopic.php?p=1368185#p1368185

I have written six books and published five of them so far. One is called Joseph Smith's United order "a non-communalist interpretation
and Brigham Young's United order: a contextual interpretation

They are both online for free at https://futuremormonism.blogspot.com

It is probably true that Brigham Young borrowed money from the church at times, but I'm quite confident he never took any salary money from the church. That was the invention of Wilford Woodruff in 1896. Brigham Young was an economic organizer of great skill, and I believe that accounts for most of the wealth he accumulated. He hired large numbers of people to do effective work for him.

Most people are not aware of one of the most critical factors that Brigham Young had to deal with. The people of Utah had no laws available to them concerning the ownership of land, the formation of economic units, the formation of an effective law enforcement system, etc., until at least 1869, when a few of these laws were finally available in Utah territory. The first such law concerned the ability to hold title to land.

Without trying to retell this entire story, which is told in my book "Brigham Young's United order" I would just mention that what we know today as "blood atonement" was nothing more than a clever substitute for the missing law enforcement system. Actually it might be called some "tongue-in-cheek" theological theorizing, an ironic solution to a real problem. Brigham Young's logic was that for murderers and rapists, he would be doing them a great favor to spill their blood and thus allow them to atone for their terrible sins. And that very helpful "atonement" process could be carried out by such people as Sheriff [or Marshall?] Orrin Porter Rockwell who might shoot such people who deserved it. It was also necessary to have a very active "vigilante-style" system in place, since there was no other effective law enforcement available. That accounts for some of the "law enforcement" that was going on under the "blood atonement" theory. It was also fairly common in rough parts of the United States, including the southern states, that, for example, if a man moved in with another man's wife, while the other man was on a mission, when that man returned from his mission he had a duty to shoot the interloper. That is one of the famous cases in Utah where that exact thing happened. I should remember the name of the famous legal case, but I don't at the moment..

Most people apply a massive dose of "presentism" when they read about church history. But since they know hardly anything at all about the setting in which this history took place, they are wrong a lot more often than they are right.

I also remember reading about Joseph Smith saying he was sorry that he had ordained Elijah Abel, and that he would not do it again. It had nothing to do with the worthiness of blacks, but only the setting in which ordaining a few blacks in that pre-Civil War setting could mean every last Mormon being killed in the state such as Missouri. Quite a few were killed anyway. It is one thing to do the right thing, it's another thing to do it knowing that you're going to get a few thousand people murdered for doing it. That's another giant missing piece in our church history. No one seems to grasp the intense conflict between the freedom-loving Mormons and the slavers who were already operating plantations with slaves in Missouri. The extermination order was executed to get rid of the Mormons so that they would not vote to change Missouri into a free state. That topic deserves a book of its own. But most Mormons are completely ignorant of any of that information. – More massive "presentism" problems leading to massive misunderstandings of what was going on in those early days..

Incidentally, history is NOT void of Brigham Young out earning a living by his trade, assuming his new trade, besides being a cabinetmaker, was to organize tens of thousands of people into highly productive economic activities, contracting for many millions of dollars for supplying labor in building railroads, guarding and operating the pony express routes, etc.

To Shawn Henry question on blood atonement

Brigham Young's United Order Volume 2, p.261


CHAPTER 19

Blood Atonement: Law Enforcement In Utah


The closest thing to the application of a real "blood atonement" law is probably the 1851 Howard Egan case. A James Monroe was killed by Mr. Egan for having seduced Egan's wife and lived with her for a time. An illegitimate child was born. According to the defendant's attorney, the rule of law to be applied was: a man seducing another's wife is subject to death at the hand of the nearest relative. An account of the trial proceedings was included in the Journal of Discourses:

PLEA OF GEORGE A. SMITH, ESQ., ON THE TRIAL
OF HOWARD EGAN FOR THE MURDER OF JAMES MONROE,
BEFORE THE HON. Z. SNOW, JUDGE OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE TERRITORY OF UTAH.
GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER TERM, 1851.

It was admitted on the part of the prosecution, that James Monroe, who is alleged in this indictment to have been killed by Howard Egan, had seduced Egan's wife; that he had come into this place in the absence of her husband, and had seduced his family, in consequence of which, an illegitimate child had been brought into the world; and the disgrace which must arise from such a transaction in his family, had fallen on the head of the defendant. ...
In taking this point into consideration, I argue that in this territory it is a principle of mountain common law, that no man can seduce the wife of another without endangering his own life. ....
What is natural justice with this people? Does a civil suit for damages answer the purpose, not with an isolated individual, but with this whole community? No! it does not! The principle, the only one that beats and throbs through the heart of the entire inhabitants of this Territory, is simply this: The man who seduces his neighbor's wife must die, and her nearest relative must kill him! ...
f Howard Egan had not killed that man, he would have been damned by the community for ever, and could not have lived peaceably, without the frown of every man. Now we see that the laws of England only require a civil suit for damages, in a case of seduction; but are these laws to be applied to us who inhabit these mountain heights? The idea is preposterous. You might as well think of applying to us the law of England which pertains to the sovereign lady, the Queen, alone. I will apply it, and with much better sense: "To seduce the sovereign lady, the Queen, is death by the law." I will say, here, in our own Territory, we are the sovereign people, and to seduce the wife of a citizen is death by the common law. JD 1:95.

The non-LDS judge in the case tried to support a different code of justice:

CHARGE OF HON. Z. SNOW, JUDGE OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, TO THE JURY, ON THE
TRIAL OF HOWARD EGAN FOR THE MURDER OF
JAMES MONROE.
GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER TERM, 1851.

The law does not permit a person to take the redress of grievances into his own hands. Though the deceased may have seduced the defendant's wife, as he now alleges, still he had no right to take the remedy into his own hands. ... If, as it is contended by the defendant's attorney, he killed Monroe in the name of the Lord, it does not change the law of the case. JD 1:100.

The judge was not able to convince the jury of this foreign and more lenient standard, and the defendant was pronounced "not guilty."

Leland41-2 wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 12:45 am The closest thing to the application of a real "blood atonement" law is probably the 1851 Howard Egan case.

Probably???

It's well documented that BY used Orrin Porter Rockwell, Bill Hickman, and Josea Stout to blood atone the saints who were leaving Utah territory because they were leaving the faith and going against their covenants. Hickman and Stout wrote about it their journals. Stout even lamented that Brigham never paid them and the only compensation they got was that they got to loot their wagons, horses, and other belongings. This is how BY scared people into staying in the territory. It goes far beyond murderers and rapists.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 7:48 pm

Leland41-2 wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 12:45 am The closest thing to the application of a real "blood atonement" law is probably the 1851 Howard Egan case.

Probably???

It's well documented that BY used Orrin Porter Rockwell, Bill Hickman, and Josea Stout to blood atone the saints who were leaving Utah territory because they were leaving the faith and going against their covenants. Hickman and Stout wrote about it their journals. Stout even lamented that Brigham never paid them and the only compensation they got was that they got to loot their wagons, horses, and other belongings. This is how BY scared people into staying in the territory. It goes far beyond murderers and rapists.

It would be interesting to know where you got all this dark and twisted information. It sounds like you have been scarred for life.

Leland41-2 wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 8:48 pm It would be interesting to know where you got all this dark and twisted information. It sounds like you have been scarred for life.

From books. You could read some too. Start with Quinn and then Bushman.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑March 21st, 2023, 9:28 pm

Leland41-2 wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 8:48 pm It would be interesting to know where you got all this dark and twisted information. It sounds like you have been scarred for life.

From books. You could read some too. Start with Quinn and then Bushman.

Shawn Henry,

It is interesting that we could have such different experiences reading church history. I recall more than once trying to read Quinn and Bushman, and I couldn't read more than a handful of pages and I then couldn't take it anymore. I never could put my finger on it, but perhaps "dark and twisted" will serve for the moment. It was simply depressing.

It's not like I haven't read some church history. I have read multiple times the multivolume sets of the Journal of Discourses, the Joseph History of the Church, the Comprehensive History of the Church (B. H. Roberts), and a ton of other books including Hugh Nibley's small library, etc., etc. But these two guys are too much for me. Maybe if I could bear to read more of their material I could finally analyze what I have read.