LDS Freedom Forum

Luke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 11:44 am 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).

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 9th, 2023, 10:44 pm

JuneBug12000 wrote: ↑October 9th, 2023, 10:30 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 9th, 2023, 4:32 pm I was taught about the hand gestures a year or two ago and actually forgot about them until they were noted in this thread. It's quite significant because members today have no idea about the symbolism, and those who do don't have the excuse to say that the oaths or signs were removed. They are still there today.

I do not know what they symbolize. Can you help me understand?

The hand w/ finger extended (like a blade) was pulled from ear to ear across the throat in a slashing motion. It was then pulled across the belly as an act of spilling your guts. The cupped hand, from what I understand, was to hold your guts as they spilled out.

Now, read the oaths from Akish in the OP, and the Sermon on the Mount. Those will really mess with your head (pun intended) if you’ve been endowed.

Here’s a much longer Wiki page on it. I don’t know how accurate it all is, but there’s a lot to digest: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of ... ordinances.

Luke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 11:47 am

4Joshua8 wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 11:46 am 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.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:36 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 11:29 am 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.

TheDuke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 12:22 pm I never ever saw swore to spill anyone’s blood, let alone mine.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:46 pm

TheDuke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 12:22 pm I never ever saw swore to spill anyone’s blood, let alone mine.

Duke, how are you so oblivious to historical facts? So, you never went to the temple before the summer of 1990, I did. All of us who did pantomimed the cutting of our own throats and our hearts and disembowelment.

JLHPROF wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 1:57 pm There's not a single incident in any historical record that fits your accusation.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:30 pm

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 8:22 am 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"?

• 33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
  34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all....
  37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay

• 12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:41 pm

Luke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 11:47 am

4Joshua8 wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 11:46 am 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.

Holy crap! "Take no oath at all" has different interpretations? No, it doesn't.

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:00 pm The portion he is correcting is regarding the light speech forswearing and not the performance of oaths to the Lord.

Luke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:01 pm Yes it does when you literally have men of God swearing oaths and God not condemning them in any way. If you want to just ignore any evidence you don’t like — as usual — then you are free to do that. But I’m going to take all the evidence into account, because truth exists in the balance of two or more opposing principles.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:07 pm

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:00 pm The portion he is correcting is regarding the light speech forswearing and not the performance of oaths to the Lord.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If he says swear not at all, it means not at all.

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 11:41 am

ransomme wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 10:48 am

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 8:30 am

'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?

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?

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:13 pm

Luke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:01 pm Yes it does when you literally have men of God swearing oaths and God not condemning them in any way. If you want to just ignore any evidence you don’t like — as usual — then you are free to do that. But I’m going to take all the evidence into account, because truth exists in the balance of two or more opposing principles.

I'm not ignoring the other evidence. I acknowledge apostate Israel swore oaths. When the Savior says it so plainly, the only 'opposing principle' is when people do swear oaths. Swearing them at all is evil. Swearing them not at all is good. Those are your two opposing principles.

So, here we have the Savior's one time to clarify his position on oath swearing and he just blows it. If only he was familiar with the other scriptures.

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 5:19 pm

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:13 pm

Luke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:01 pm Yes it does when you literally have men of God swearing oaths and God not condemning them in any way. If you want to just ignore any evidence you don’t like — as usual — then you are free to do that. But I’m going to take all the evidence into account, because truth exists in the balance of two or more opposing principles.

I'm not ignoring the other evidence. I acknowledge apostate Israel swore oaths. When the Savior says it so plainly, the only 'opposing principle' is when people do swear oaths. Swearing them at all is evil. Swearing them not at all is good. Those are your two opposing principles.

So, here we have the Savior's one time to clarify his position on oath swearing and he just blows it. If only he was familiar with the other scriptures.

What’s the difference between swearing a religious oath and entering into a business contract?

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:46 pm

TheDuke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 12:22 pm I never ever saw swore to spill anyone’s blood, let alone mine.

Duke, how are you so oblivious to historical facts? So, you never went to the temple before the summer of 1990, I did. All of us who did pantomimed the cutting of our own throats and our hearts and disembowelment.

ransomme wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 5:09 pm

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 11:41 am

ransomme wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 10:48 am

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?

The Lord didn't say don't make an oath/promise. He said don't swear by heaven, the earth or your own head.

ransomme wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 5:09 pm Once again the problem is swearing by your life which is not your own.

The problem is also that in the scriptures only evil people swear an oath by their own life.

The Book of Mormon thoroughly destroys that practice. It's like the book was written for our day... The BoM left, right and center witnesses against all of Brigham Young's corrupt doctrines.]

TheDuke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 7:21 pm

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:46 pm

TheDuke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 12:22 pm I never ever saw swore to spill anyone’s blood, let alone mine.

Duke, how are you so oblivious to historical facts? So, you never went to the temple before the summer of 1990, I did. All of us who did pantomimed the cutting of our own throats and our hearts and disembowelment.

I was there in 1974. We did not promise to kill ourselves in any way. You are just stating either gross misunderstanding or intentional rewriting of the narrative. The latter is lying. If I wasn't so sure that you really cannot comprehend these things of exaltation I would think the latter, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have either learning or memory problems.

Seems the statement was something like, with regard to sharing the names and tokens that is, "I would rather suffer ..... than reveal it". That's not an oath and no blood is shared, and no where did I promise to shed blood. Neither did you. You just cannot recall it, either due to a form of TDS or some other stimulant most likely. Hell you could have reread it online and refreshed your memory. Maybe get of the statin's I hear that harms memory?

BTW, I can still recall it word for word.

So, reread it online and return and please tell me if you were mistakenly remembering things or just making up untruths for reasons known only to yourself? BTW the link to the early endowment words has already been posted on the forum.

JLHPROF wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 8:24 pm

TheDuke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 7:21 pm

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:46 pm
Duke, how are you so oblivious to historical facts? So, you never went to the temple before the summer of 1990, I did. All of us who did pantomimed the cutting of our own throats and our hearts and disembowelment.

I was there in 1974. We did not promise to kill ourselves in any way. You are just stating either gross misunderstanding or intentional rewriting of the narrative. The latter is lying. If I wasn't so sure that you really cannot comprehend these things of exaltation I would think the latter, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have either learning or memory problems.

Seems the statement was something like, with regard to sharing the names and tokens that is, "I would rather suffer ..... than reveal it". That's not an oath and no blood is shared, and no where did I promise to shed blood. Neither did you. You just cannot recall it, either due to a form of TDS or some other stimulant most likely. Hell you could have reread it online and refreshed your memory. Maybe get of the statin's I hear that harms memory?

BTW, I can still recall it word for word.

So, reread it online and return and please tell me if you were mistakenly remembering things or just making up untruths for reasons known only to yourself? BTW the link to the early endowment words has already been posted on the forum.

In all fairness the "life may be taken" did replace specific graphic descriptions in the 1920s. Prior to that there was definitely a promise to have life taken.

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 8:18 pm

ransomme wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 5:09 pm

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 11:41 am

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?

The Lord didn't say don't make an oath/promise. He said don't swear by heaven, the earth or your own head.

So you admit God would allow oaths/promises to be made? This causes you to stand apart from others in this thread who say the plain word of Jesus flatly prohibits such things. Well, I'm glad to hear you see the Sermon on the Mount remarks in context.

I believe from your remarks that you'd admit that swearing and making an oath or a promise is essentially the same thing for the purpose of this discussion.

ransomme wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 5:09 pm Once again the problem is swearing by your life which is not your own.

The problem is also that in the scriptures only evil people swear an oath by their own life.

The Book of Mormon thoroughly destroys that practice. It's like the book was written for our day... The BoM left, right and center witnesses against all of Brigham Young's corrupt doctrines.]

Okay, so Nephi tells Zoram that his promise good upon his life and the life of God. This is the highest vow one can make. True that it does not infer that death would follow if he broke his promise, but as much is implied by the principle of honor in this language. This is the inverse of the Biblical oath of deference (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20504320) inasmuch as Nephi sees himself in this situation as possibly being of a superior social status to Laban's servant. A similar phrase is employed in 1 Ne 3:15 but it's staking the lives of the whole party (Nephi and his brothers) on their desire to complete their mission to obtain the plates.

Now in these cases why would they swear on the life of God (at least Paul keeps his swearing to his own soul!), which is not theirs to take? Because they're so serious about their objective that they would be bold enough to place an impossibly high bet on the outcome.

This is the same thing that occurs in the temple ordinances. There is no actual expectation of death, just as Nephi has no actual ability to take God's life, but the seriousness is of the highest degree, and each organ specified carries heavy symbolic weight.

Now, we didn't even get into blood atonement, but it is a true doctrine, and the Book of Mormon is full of it.

And it came to pass that they all sware unto him, by the God of heaven, and also by the heavens, and also by the earth, and by their heads, that whoso should vary from the assistance which Akish desired should lose his head; and whoso should divulge whatsoever thing Akish made known unto them, the same should lose his life. (Ether 8:14)

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 9:51 pm This has definitely been a fascinating thread. It’s pretty wild that there are individuals who still insist on mislabeling covenants with God as “blood oaths” even when it has been repeatedly shown that similar covenants were made between righteous individuals and God in the scriptures. And then of course there’s the little fact of history that no blood was used in the endowment “oaths” and people weren’t put to death for breaking their covenants, either.

But I guess facts are irrelevant. People with an agenda will just keep on screaming and shouting “blood oaths!" And this is completely unnecessary. One can disagree with the validity of the endowment without having to sensationalize things one doesn’t agree with. But then again maybe it is necessary, because without sensationalize it, it’s really hard for people to find any grounds to invalidate it.

Luke wrote: ↑October 10th, 2023, 4:56 am

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 10th, 2023, 4:13 am

Luke wrote: ↑October 10th, 2023, 1:40 am Alma 46
21 And it came to pass that when Moroni had proclaimed these words, behold, the people came running together with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God; or, in other words, if they should transgress the commandments of God, or fall into transgression, and be ashamed to take upon them the name of Christ, the Lord should rend them even as they had rent their garments.

So you are down w/ the blood oaths that Brigham introduced? And it is clear by the wording that it was Brigham.

I think there is a world of difference between what these people were doing, what Akish, was doing, and what Brigham was doing.

I’m completely fine with them, but it wasn’t BY who introduced them — it was Christ who restored them through Joseph Smith

kirtland r.m. wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 4:19 am

Luke wrote: ↑October 10th, 2023, 4:56 am

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 10th, 2023, 4:13 am

So you are down w/ the blood oaths that Brigham introduced? And it is clear by the wording that it was Brigham.

I think there is a world of difference between what these people were doing, what Akish, was doing, and what Brigham was doing.

I’m completely fine with them, but it wasn’t BY who introduced them — it was Christ who restored them through Joseph Smith

Thanks for pointing out that because Gads had them, that they were not practiced by the faithful as well (not identical or for the same purposes). Secret combinations to get gain are different than sacred covenants and secrecy for sacred materials was often practiced among the faithful. From the somewhat scary posting further up this thread, I can feel a historical middle eastern history lesson will be helpful on this subject and may need to be in the works. In addition, it is amazing to me that Brigham gets dissed by so many, and seems to almost always take the heat for things he was not responsible for.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 9:51 pm This has definitely been a fascinating thread. It’s pretty wild that there are individuals who still insist on mislabeling covenants with God as “blood oaths” even when it has been repeatedly shown that similar covenants were made between righteous individuals and God in the scriptures. And then of course there’s the little fact of history that no blood was used in the endowment “oaths” and people weren’t put to death for breaking their covenants, either.

But I guess facts are irrelevant. People with an agenda will just keep on screaming and shouting “blood oaths!" And this is completely unnecessary. One can disagree with the validity of the endowment without having to sensationalize things one doesn’t agree with. But then again maybe it is necessary, because without sensationalize it, it’s really hard for people to find any grounds to invalidate it.