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

[Baurak Ale]

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.

That's unsubstantiated. You must seriously have forgotten the covenants to be making an error of this kind about the Law of the Gospel and its manner of swearing. For one, it is not a life oath; for two, you are absolutely allowed to bring up complaints against leaders but there is a way to do this AND requires evidence/witnesses. If you just start spouting at the pulpit your opinion on wayward leaders, you will likely be questioned, and if what you say is determined to be unsubstantiated or unprovable you have every right to be told to cease promulgating such things or face ouster. This is the right of any well regulated organize body.
To say you would be killed in BY's day for such is just sensational.

[Reluctant Watchman]

...for two, you are absolutely allowed to bring up complaints against leaders but there is a way to do this AND requires evidence/witnesses. If you just start spouting at the pulpit your opinion on wayward leaders, you will likely be questioned, and if what you say is determined to be unsubstantiated or unprovable you have every right to be told to cease promulgating such things or face ouster. This is the right of any well regulated organize body.

There is no room for error in the apostate doctrine of the church. A leader can never be wrong. It doesn't matter what you say, as long as you keep it to yourself. I suggest you try it. Try approaching your leaders and teaching them about the false teaching that a prophet could never lead you astray. See how far that gets you.

Section 32.6.3.2
As used here, apostasy refers to a member engaging in any of the following: Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders.

You can try to substantiate your belief that the church is in apostasy, even quoting all the scripture you like, and proving how often leaders have lied, they just won't listen to you.

[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.

'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.

Your life, your body is not your own. Have you not read the scriptures?

1 Cor 6
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

The God that gave you life, does not want to take it from you. Jesus has already redeemed you. He bought you for a price. You are His. You're life is His.

And even if it was your life, then you'd basically be selling your soul.

This is just the surface. What you are saying is ignorant.

[Baurak Ale]

...for two, you are absolutely allowed to bring up complaints against leaders but there is a way to do this AND requires evidence/witnesses. If you just start spouting at the pulpit your opinion on wayward leaders, you will likely be questioned, and if what you say is determined to be unsubstantiated or unprovable you have every right to be told to cease promulgating such things or face ouster. This is the right of any well regulated organize body.

There is no room for error in the apostate doctrine of the church. A leader can never be wrong. It doesn't matter what you say, as long as you keep it to yourself. I suggest you try it. Try approaching your leaders and teaching them about the false teaching that a prophet could never lead you astray. See how far that gets you.

Section 32.6.3.2
As used here, apostasy refers to a member engaging in any of the following: Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders.

You can try to substantiate your belief that the church is in apostasy, even quoting all the scripture you like, and proving how often leaders have lied, they just won't listen to you.

Right, a public claim such as that is a sure fire way to be excommunicated. The evidence is subjective (although easily demonstrated by scripture) but is always put down with the false axiom that modern prophets always trump old ones, etc.—that is not proof that there isn't a channel for appropriate actions against overt abuses by church leaders. There have been many high profile excommunications precisely because this is possible when the evidence comes to light.

You are complaining about the inability of the common member of the church to raise the hue and cry of organizational apostasy and be heard. Few leaders are willing to hear it, though I know a few myself who talk about it privately.

Now, back to the main point, temple covenants that pertain to slander are not made with an oath upon one's life, and Brigham would not have had people killed for it.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Now, back to the main point, temple covenants that pertain to slander are not made with an oath upon one's life, and Brigham would not have had people killed for it.

Pure speculation. Years ago I read a testimony witness from a guy who was close to Brigham, like he was a bodyguard or something. He said that Brigham specifically had him kill people under the pretense of blood oaths.

[Baurak Ale]

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.

Your life, your body is not your own. Have you not read the scriptures?

1 Cor 6
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

The God that gave you life, does not want to take it from you. Jesus has already redeemed you. He bought you for a price. You are His. You're life is His.

And even if it was your life, then you'd basically be selling your soul.

This is just the surface. What you are saying is ignorant.

You sound very wise in your speech, but your words betray an empty exegesis. Did not God send the flood in Noah's day? Did he not burn Zarahemla and the inhabitants thereof? Surely God does not delight in the wasting of life, but he will honor his own word when he says concerning the wicked:

• "Woe unto them! for they have fled from me: destruction unto them! because they have transgressed against me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me" (Hosea 7:13).

Who would argue that Christ's ransom is made for naught by making an oath on one's life? Did Nephi sell his soul when he made the most solemn of vows with Zoram? Did Paul sell his soul when he vowed to the Corinthians that he did not come to Corinth?

[Luke]

Did Nephi sell his soul when he made the most solemn of vows with Zoram? Did Paul sell his soul when he vowed to the Corinthians that he did not come to Corinth?

Which would beg the question — should we do away with weddings and marriage ceremonies altogether? Why not just do as the world does and say “yes I’ll be with you”? (Which is not an attack on godly common-law marriage, I might add).

[Baurak Ale]

Now, back to the main point, temple covenants that pertain to slander are not made with an oath upon one's life, and Brigham would not have had people killed for it.

Pure speculation. Years ago I read a testimony witness from a guy who was close to Brigham, like he was a bodyguard or something. He said that Brigham specifically had him kill people under the pretense of blood oaths.

Great, sounds real trustworthy. But why would you trust that—a single claim—when you don't trust the multitude of other people—multiple claims—around Brigham who said Joseph taught polygamy? Will you only believe such witnesses when they speak what is evil in your ears?

[4Joshua8]

Again, the law giver has said:
“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]

Again, the law giver has said:
“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

Yes, but interpretation matters.

[JuneBug12000]

Again, the law giver has said:
“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

Yes, but interpretation matters.

True, but the pattern of the scriptures is those who add to it take away from what God said are wrong. Those who do what he says are right.

Interpretation can often lead to adding to and taking away from. Fashioning a god in our image instead of seeking to know God.

I would also argue that much of the Bible and Book of Mormon are stories of people getting things wrong. A warning.

Why did Christ come in the flesh, besides the Atonement and Ressurrection? To clean up all the misconceptions people "interpreted" from his words in the past.

Why will he come again? To clear up all the "interpretations" people made since his last visit.

I'd say were just about ripe for the "cleaning up."

[Reluctant Watchman]

Now, back to the main point, temple covenants that pertain to slander are not made with an oath upon one's life, and Brigham would not have had people killed for it.

Pure speculation. Years ago I read a testimony witness from a guy who was close to Brigham, like he was a bodyguard or something. He said that Brigham specifically had him kill people under the pretense of blood oaths.

Great, sounds real trustworthy. But why would you trust that—a single claim—when you don't trust the multitude of other people—multiple claims—around Brigham who said Joseph taught polygamy? Will you only believe such witnesses when they speak what is evil in your ears?

I don't trust the claim. But it does exist. As far as the "multiple claims" part, that's a long discussion I'm not gonna go down. I think a lot of history or testimony witnesses were fabricated. Regardless, to believe the narrative, you have to believe Joseph and his family were the worst lying folk in modern era.

[Luke]

Regardless, to believe the narrative, you have to believe Joseph and his family were the worst lying folk in modern era.

No you don’t lmao, his denials weren’t that outlandish — and he had good reason to deny in public.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Regardless, to believe the narrative, you have to believe Joseph and his family were the worst lying folk in modern era.

No you don’t lmao, his denials weren’t that outlandish — and he had good reason to deny in public.

*sigh* we'll simply disagree. Hyrum's talk, right before he was murdered, was very blunt on this subject. So was Emma. And... Joseph.

[Luke]

Regardless, to believe the narrative, you have to believe Joseph and his family were the worst lying folk in modern era.

No you don’t lmao, his denials weren’t that outlandish — and he had good reason to deny in public.

*sigh* we'll simply disagree. Hyrum's talk, right before he was murdered, was very blunt on this subject. So was Emma. And... Joseph.

Hyrum’s talk was literally hinting at polygamy a load of times

[TheDuke]

You used sophistry in cutting off that quote. And after repeatedly bringing up the ages of wives and sensationalizing it by calling it “pedophilia," you claimed that you don’t care about the ages. Is that being honest?

And there’s nothing left to discuss about the covenants in the temple. It has all been thoroughly explained to you, No matter what anyone says you will incorrectly label them as “blood oaths."

Give it up already. RW cannot even use an English definition, he makes up his own and when caught doing so, does exactly what you see here. Then re-engages later with a new definition. It is not possible to pin down some one one way or another that uses secret magic words and terms to make his case on a continually shifting paradigm.....

Better to spend your energy communicating with those on the forum that are actually interested in truth and accomplishing things other than tearing down someone else's faith as a "watchman" and replacing it with his own teachings, that are made of his own doctrines and even terms.

Duke, keep reading, I explained myself on this topic already. You, yes you, ASSUMED that my original OP was a dictionary definition. YOU are the one who made that assumption. Read the OP again. Swearing by the heavens that you’ll spill your own blood is an oath founded upon blood. It is a blood oath.

I am always astounded at how you like to use condescending language. I could say a lot of what I think about your ability to twist a person’s words, but that would break forum guidelines. But I guess I can borrow your own language: BS.

Since you think this is a waste of time, I suggest you stop responding to my comments or on any of my threads. Somehow though, you just can’t. Also, you’re perpetuating a fallacy in thinking that what I have shared is tearing down faith. To you, the words and doctrines of the church are unquestionable. What happens when those doctrines contradict Christ’s teachings? What then? The very accusation you are making against me could be used to condemn any seeker of truth. You would condemn nearly every BoM prophet who spoke up against false doctrines and practices. The BoM condemns the LDS church and their anti-Christian and apostate doctrines.

You are full of it. I never ever saw swore to spill anyone’s blood, let alone mine. Your living in a hellish place it seems . Temple was always loving as I recall.

[Reluctant Watchman]

No you don’t lmao, his denials weren’t that outlandish — and he had good reason to deny in public.

*sigh* we'll simply disagree. Hyrum's talk, right before he was murdered, was very blunt on this subject. So was Emma. And... Joseph.

Hyrum’s talk was literally hinting at polygamy a load of times

Oh, yeah, lots of *hint, hint, wink, wink* w/ the poly narrative for sure.
BTW, his last talk said nothing of the sort.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You are full of it.

And yet here you are... Good to hear from you Duke.

[Luke]

*sigh* we'll simply disagree. Hyrum's talk, right before he was murdered, was very blunt on this subject. So was Emma. And... Joseph.

Hyrum’s talk was literally hinting at polygamy a load of times

Oh, yeah, lots of *hint, hint, wink, wink* w/ the poly narrative for sure.
BTW, his last talk said nothing of the sort.

Yes it did. In fact, it was one of the things which threw me through a loop when I was on your side of the debate — it’s so obvious that he was throwing out hints.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Hyrum’s talk was literally hinting at polygamy a load of times

Oh, yeah, lots of *hint, hint, wink, wink* w/ the poly narrative for sure.
BTW, his last talk said nothing of the sort.

Yes it did. In fact, it was one of the things which threw me through a loop when I was on your side of the debate — it’s so obvious that he was throwing out hints.

Soooo obvious. *wink, wink* Can you give me a secret handshake so I can know? Or how about an oath that I’ll slit my own thrown and bowels, that would be nice.

[JLHPROF]

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.

Yeah, that never happened.
The ONLY rumored incidents of blood atonement in those days were always for sexual sins. (With the well known exception of John D. Lee after Mountain Meadows).
There's not a single incident in any historical record that fits your accusation.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Yeah, that never happened.
The ONLY rumored incidents of blood atonement in those days were always for sexual sins. (With the well known exception of John D. Lee after Mountain Meadows).
There's not a single incident in any historical record that fits your accusation.

Sure, just like your men can "never lead you astray." Ok. Ever heard of secret combinations? And yes, there are historical records. Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist. I wish this was the least of our worries with the LDS org and modern leaders.

[Shawn Henry]

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

Oh, it's still according to me is it?

You've read the Savior's own words in the Sermon on the Mount. Why would you even try to resort to the unintelligible gibberish of Paul when the Savior was so clear. He doesn't want us swearing oaths, it is evil. Whether he can swear one is another story.

[Shawn Henry]

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.

You completely ignore the Sermon on the Mount and you're worried about my exegesis?

No doubt the apostate Jews swore oaths. Referencing that in scripture isn't helping your case.

Please tell me how you are not saying that the Savior misspoke in the Sermon on the Mount. Do you have some alternate definition of "swear not at all"?

[Shawn Henry]

Years ago I read a testimony witness from a guy who was close to Brigham, like he was a bodyguard or something. He said that Brigham specifically had him kill people under the pretense of blood oaths.

Bill Hickman, Josea Stout, and Orrin Rockwell were the 3 who carried out BY's blood atonement. Josea and Bill wrote about in their journals, Orrin didn't.

One of them lamented that BY didn't pay them for carrying out the blood atonement and the only compensation they got was the first pick at their belongings.