How did the early members miss this? Blood oaths and the temple.

[Shawn Henry]

Hebrews 6:
13When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath.

He isn't swearing an oath. The author states he "sware by himself", but look at what is actually attributed to the Lord. The Lord said "Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee".

There's no oath there. That is a promise by the Lord.

How is that you think the Lord made a mistake in phrasing the Sermon on the Mount like he did?

[4Joshua8]

“But I say to you, take no oath at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God, nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, nor by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. Nor shall you take an oath by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. But make sure your statement is, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil origin.” Jesus

[Luke]

Hebrews 7
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
. . .
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.“

NLT Hebrews 7
20 This new system was established with a solemn oath. Aaron’s descendants became priests without such an oath, 21 but there was an oath regarding Jesus. For God said to him,
“The Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
‘You are a priest forever.’”
22 Because of this oath, Jesus is the one who guarantees this better covenant with God.
. . .
28 The law appointed high priests who were limited by human weakness. But after the law was given, God appointed his Son with an oath, and his Son has been made the perfect High Priest forever.

[ransomme]

Hebrews 7
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
. . .
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.“

NLT Hebrews 7
20 This new system was established with a solemn oath. Aaron’s descendants became priests without such an oath, 21 but there was an oath regarding Jesus. For God said to him,
“The Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
‘You are a priest forever.’”
22 Because of this oath, Jesus is the one who guarantees this better covenant with God.
. . .
28 The law appointed high priests who were limited by human weakness. But after the law was given, God appointed his Son with an oath, and his Son has been made the perfect High Priest forever.

The Father made the oath, while the Son fulfilled the covenant.

The Son did not swear an oath by His head and by His bowels to the Father.

On earth, sons and daughters of God do not swear blood oaths. In the scriptures, the only such examples are performed by children of Satan.

[Luke]

Hebrews 7
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
. . .
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.“

NLT Hebrews 7
20 This new system was established with a solemn oath. Aaron’s descendants became priests without such an oath, 21 but there was an oath regarding Jesus. For God said to him,
“The Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
‘You are a priest forever.’”
22 Because of this oath, Jesus is the one who guarantees this better covenant with God.
. . .
28 The law appointed high priests who were limited by human weakness. But after the law was given, God appointed his Son with an oath, and his Son has been made the perfect High Priest forever.

The Father made the oath, while the Son fulfilled the covenant.

The Son did not swear an oath by His head and by His bowels to the Father.

On earth, sons and daughters of God do not swear blood oaths. In the scriptures, the only such examples are performed by children of Satan.

That’s hardly the point. According to Shawn and co. ALL oaths are evil.

[ransomme]

Hebrews 7
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
. . .
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.“

NLT Hebrews 7
20 This new system was established with a solemn oath. Aaron’s descendants became priests without such an oath, 21 but there was an oath regarding Jesus. For God said to him,
“The Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
‘You are a priest forever.’”
22 Because of this oath, Jesus is the one who guarantees this better covenant with God.
. . .
28 The law appointed high priests who were limited by human weakness. But after the law was given, God appointed his Son with an oath, and his Son has been made the perfect High Priest forever.

The Father made the oath, while the Son fulfilled the covenant.

The Son did not swear an oath by His head and by His bowels to the Father.

On earth, sons and daughters of God do not swear blood oaths. In the scriptures, the only such examples are performed by children of Satan.

That’s hardly the point. According to Shawn and co. ALL oaths are evil.

That's not what they are saying. They are saying that in the sermon on the mount Jesus forbad us to swear oaths. Basically what is written is that we have nothing to swear upon that's ours. That only God can swear an oath on His honor.

[Reluctant Watchman]

That’s hardly the point. According to Shawn and co. ALL oaths are evil.

No, not true at all. You should read what I posted in the Nemenhah Record thread yesterday.

[Luke]

That’s hardly the point. According to Shawn and co. ALL oaths are evil.

No, not true at all. You should read what I posted in the Nemenhah Record thread yesterday.

I didn’t mention you.

[Reluctant Watchman]

That’s hardly the point. According to Shawn and co. ALL oaths are evil.

No, not true at all. You should read what I posted in the Nemenhah Record thread yesterday.

I didn’t mention you.

Ok, Mr vague. “Shawn and co…”

[Baurak Ale]

Hebrews 6:
13When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath.

He isn't swearing an oath. The author states he "sware by himself", but look at what is actually attributed to the Lord. The Lord said "Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee".

There's no oath there. That is a promise by the Lord.

How is that you think the Lord made a mistake in phrasing the Sermon on the Mount like he did?

Your ability to perform exegesis is concerning, in my view. There is a whole text to analyze and yet you place immutability on certain phrasing, which, if taken as you say, proves contrary to other passages within the same text.

Take for example Jesus' later teaching on swearing oaths wherein he again emphasizes the need to consider the holiness of all things touching God:

• Matthew 23:
  16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
  17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
  18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
  19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
  20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
  21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
  22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

Take as another example the many times Paul swears or makes solemn attestations:

• 1 Corinthians 15 (NLT):
  31 For I swear, dear brothers and sisters, that I face death daily. This is as certain as my pride in what Christ Jesus our Lord has done in you.
• 2 Corinthians 1 (NIV):
  23 I call God as my witness—and I stake my life on it—that it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth.
• Galatians 1 (CEV):
  20 And in the presence of God I swear I am telling the truth.
• Philippians 1 (ESV):
  8 For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.

I hope in fairness to the 'plain English' you champion that you do not object to my citing other translations that make the point of the source language clearer than the King James Version is apt to do to us modern users of the language.

[Baurak Ale]

Hebrews 7
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
. . .
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.“

NLT Hebrews 7
20 This new system was established with a solemn oath. Aaron’s descendants became priests without such an oath, 21 but there was an oath regarding Jesus. For God said to him,
“The Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
‘You are a priest forever.’”
22 Because of this oath, Jesus is the one who guarantees this better covenant with God.
. . .
28 The law appointed high priests who were limited by human weakness. But after the law was given, God appointed his Son with an oath, and his Son has been made the perfect High Priest forever.

The Father made the oath, while the Son fulfilled the covenant.

The Son did not swear an oath by His head and by His bowels to the Father.

On earth, sons and daughters of God do not swear blood oaths. In the scriptures, the only such examples are performed by children of Satan.

'Blood oaths' is a misnomer for what we are discussing. At the very least it is inaccurate. An oath on one's life, regardless of whether or how that life is intimated to be taken, is performed by the children of God in the scriptures frequently.

[Reluctant Watchman]

'Blood oaths' is a misnomer for what we are discussing. At the very least it is inaccurate. An oath on one's life, regardless of whether or how that life is intimated to be taken, is performed by the children of God in the scriptures frequently.

Of course we "freely" give of our all to God, but not by coercion and manipulation as is done through the LDS org. And not by the cutting of one's throat and belly. Not by the spilling of blood, aka an "oath of blood" or blood oath.

[Baurak Ale]

'Blood oaths' is a misnomer for what we are discussing. At the very least it is inaccurate. An oath on one's life, regardless of whether or how that life is intimated to be taken, is performed by the children of God in the scriptures frequently.

Of course we "freely" give of our all to God, but not by coercion and manipulation as is done through the LDS org. And not by the cutting of one's throat and belly. Not by the spilling of blood, aka an "oath of blood" or blood oath.

As has been made clear already, there is no blood spilled in the oaths made in the temple and hence they are not 'oaths of blood.' The penalties are symbolic variations on making on oath on one's life, which is very scriptural. If Nephi, etc., made oaths on their life, did they not involve the cessation of the circulatory functions in some way? Of course it does. Does that make it a blood oath? No.

[Baurak Ale]

'Blood oaths' is a misnomer for what we are discussing. At the very least it is inaccurate. An oath on one's life, regardless of whether or how that life is intimated to be taken, is performed by the children of God in the scriptures frequently.

Of course we "freely" give of our all to God, but not by coercion and manipulation as is done through the LDS org. And not by the cutting of one's throat and belly. Not by the spilling of blood, aka an "oath of blood" or blood oath.

Also, there is no coercion or manipulation in the temple. People who go to the temple have proved themselves as committed members of the church and builders of the kingdom, so covenanting to continue in that path of discipleship would only be construed as manipulation by the disaffected in post.

[Reluctant Watchman]

'Blood oaths' is a misnomer for what we are discussing. At the very least it is inaccurate. An oath on one's life, regardless of whether or how that life is intimated to be taken, is performed by the children of God in the scriptures frequently.

Of course we "freely" give of our all to God, but not by coercion and manipulation as is done through the LDS org. And not by the cutting of one's throat and belly. Not by the spilling of blood, aka an "oath of blood" or blood oath.

As has been made clear already, there is no blood spilled in the oaths made in the temple and hence they are not 'oaths of blood.' The penalties are symbolic variations on making on oath on one's life, which is very scriptural. If Nephi, etc., made oaths on their life, did they not involve the cessation of the circulatory functions in some way? Of course it does. Does that make it a blood oath? No.

Oh, so symbolic gestures don't matter. If you dig into the darker history of Utah, I actually think BY and others did cash in on these blood oaths in the literal sense of the word.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Also, there is no coercion or manipulation in the temple. People who go to the temple have proved themselves as committed members of the church and builders of the kingdom, so covenanting to continue in that path of discipleship would only be construed as manipulation by the disaffected in post.

The coercion and manipulation happen before you even enter the doors. My stake president was going to take away my recommend because I wouldn't follow the CDC in wearing a mask to church. How stupid is that? He leveraged his supposed position of authority and was going to take away my recommend for not following him.

There are a handful of temple recommend questions that are just abhorrent.

[Baurak Ale]

Also, there is no coercion or manipulation in the temple. People who go to the temple have proved themselves as committed members of the church and builders of the kingdom, so covenanting to continue in that path of discipleship would only be construed as manipulation by the disaffected in post.

The coercion and manipulation happen before you even enter the doors. My stake president was going to take away my recommend because I wouldn't follow the CDC in wearing a mask to church. How stupid is that? He leveraged his supposed position of authority and was going to take away my recommend for not following him.

There are a handful of temple recommend questions that are just abhorrent.

That is super stupid of him. I didn't wear masks ever and never got a word. I do hate that in the modern church you can play leadership roulette.

But that is not an inherent evidence of manipulation regarding the nature of the temple ordinances and covenants.

[Reluctant Watchman]

But that is not an inherent evidence of manipulation regarding the nature of the temple ordinances and covenants.

Yes, the temple recommend questions are evidence. Do you think the Lord would ever suggest you make an oath to a man in order to commit your life to following His teachings? That's exactly what each of you do when you sustain a leader in the LDS church. You commit to obey them. Nelson even took it a step further when he said the following:

“Our sustaining of prophets is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us” (“Sustaining the Prophets,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2014, 75).

WTH? This ^^^ my friend, is a cult.

[Baurak Ale]

Of course we "freely" give of our all to God, but not by coercion and manipulation as is done through the LDS org. And not by the cutting of one's throat and belly. Not by the spilling of blood, aka an "oath of blood" or blood oath.

As has been made clear already, there is no blood spilled in the oaths made in the temple and hence they are not 'oaths of blood.' The penalties are symbolic variations on making on oath on one's life, which is very scriptural. If Nephi, etc., made oaths on their life, did they not involve the cessation of the circulatory functions in some way? Of course it does. Does that make it a blood oath? No.

Oh, so symbolic gestures don't matter. If you dig into the darker history of Utah, I actually think BY and others did cash in on these blood oaths in the literal sense of the word.

Well, if someone broke their life oath then they probably deserved to make good on their oath. I don't doubt but that some few in Utah elected to submit to capital punishment for breaking their covenants, but no one would require it of them, especially church authorities, and most would not take their covenants that seriously. Hence Judas, in the apocrypha, submitted himself to the 11 apostles to be executed for his unforgivable sin. His blood needed to be shed as Christ's would not cover it.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Well, if someone broke their life oath then they probably deserved to make good on their oath. I don't doubt but that some few in Utah elected to submit to capital punishment for breaking their covenants, but no one would require it of them, especially church authorities, and most would not take their covenants that seriously. Hence Judas, in the apocrypha, submitted himself to the 11 apostles to be executed for his unforgivable sin. His blood needed to be shed as Christ's would not cover it.

First, you said it isn't a blood oath, and then you say spilling blood could be justified... ok.

[Baurak Ale]

But that is not an inherent evidence of manipulation regarding the nature of the temple ordinances and covenants.

Yes, the temple recommend questions are evidence. Do you think the Lord would ever suggest you make an oath to a man in order to commit your life to following His teachings? That's exactly what each of you do when you sustain a leader in the LDS church. You commit to obey them. Nelson even took it a step further when he said the following:

“Our sustaining of prophets is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us” (“Sustaining the Prophets,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2014, 75).

WTH? This ^^^ my friend, is a cult.

I see that you keep using modern church teachings as refutation against my points. I should inform you that I believe the modern church is errant in many significant places and needs to be set in order. I believe the church and its ordinances were faithfully transferred from Joseph to Brigham but that ever since Joseph died things have been slowly going downhill, as it were, but that it took a steep dive down around 1890 and has never been anywhere near where it ought to be since that time.

As far as submitting to a man is concerned, my 'oath-like' sustaining of the leaders of the church only extends as far as the spirit confirms to me that what they say is true and the Lord's word to me:
"Ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart" (D&C 46:7).

[Baurak Ale]

Well, if someone broke their life oath then they probably deserved to make good on their oath. I don't doubt but that some few in Utah elected to submit to capital punishment for breaking their covenants, but no one would require it of them, especially church authorities, and most would not take their covenants that seriously. Hence Judas, in the apocrypha, submitted himself to the 11 apostles to be executed for his unforgivable sin. His blood needed to be shed as Christ's would not cover it.

First, you said it isn't a blood oath, and then you say spilling blood could be justified... ok.

Yeah, that doesn't make it a blood oath. An oath upon one's life requires the forfeiture of that life somehow. A blood oath is one that is made using blood. I thought this was made clear before. Shedding of blood by capital punishment does not make an oath a blood oath.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Well, if someone broke their life oath then they probably deserved to make good on their oath. I don't doubt but that some few in Utah elected to submit to capital punishment for breaking their covenants, but no one would require it of them, especially church authorities, and most would not take their covenants that seriously. Hence Judas, in the apocrypha, submitted himself to the 11 apostles to be executed for his unforgivable sin. His blood needed to be shed as Christ's would not cover it.

First, you said it isn't a blood oath, and then you say spilling blood could be justified... ok.

Yeah, that doesn't make it a blood oath. An oath upon one's life requires the forfeiture of that life somehow. A blood oath is one that is made using blood. I thought this was made clear before. Shedding of blood by capital punishment does not make an oath a blood oath.

What happened in the early LDS temples gave BY full right to kill anybody who voiced a contrary opinion to his own. To "speak ill of the Lord's anointed" could get you killed in the church.

[Baurak Ale]

First, you said it isn't a blood oath, and then you say spilling blood could be justified... ok.

Yeah, that doesn't make it a blood oath. An oath upon one's life requires the forfeiture of that life somehow. A blood oath is one that is made using blood. I thought this was made clear before. Shedding of blood by capital punishment does not make an oath a blood oath.

What happened in the early LDS temples gave BY full right to kill anybody who voiced a contrary opinion to his own. To "speak ill of the Lord's anointed" could get you killed in the church.

Nonsense. "Speaking evil of" someone, which is part of the Law of the Gospel that is not received by a life oath (unlike other laws), is a Biblical phrase from Titus that means to slander someone. Slander has to be false and malicious, but if something is true it's not slander; and Brigham was the biggest advocate of removing leaders who went astray that there was.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Yeah, that doesn't make it a blood oath. An oath upon one's life requires the forfeiture of that life somehow. A blood oath is one that is made using blood. I thought this was made clear before. Shedding of blood by capital punishment does not make an oath a blood oath.

What happened in the early LDS temples gave BY full right to kill anybody who voiced a contrary opinion to his own. To "speak ill of the Lord's anointed" could get you killed in the church.

Nonsense. "Speaking evil of" someone, which is part of the Law of the Gospel that is not received by a life oath (unlike other laws), is a Biblical phrase from Titus that means to slander someone. Slander has to be false and malicious, but if something is true, Brigham was the biggest advocate of removing leaders who went astray there was.

No, not nonsense at all. Part of your "covenants" is that you won't speak against any of your leaders. That's how it is interpreted in LDS culture. That is canonized in the Handbook. Public opposition to church leaders is grounds for excommunication. In BYs day, you could be killed. I get the nuanced view here, but breaking any promise in the LDS temple brings many consequences.