Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
“Sacred not secret…” sure. I’ll ask again, are you ok making an oath to obey Nelson every time you sustain him? It’s helpful to understand your church doctrine on oaths before you even enter the door.kirtland r.m. wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 4:29 am That lesson on Biblical and middle eastern history, here it is. Blood oaths ect. ect...http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/resp ... _oaths.htm]
If your life is not your own, whose life is it? And who is the covenant between?
No one makes an oath to the prophet in the temple.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 4:22 amDo you believe the Lord wants you to make an oath to the prophet in order to covenant with the Lord?kirtland r.m. wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 4:19 amThanks 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.
Great scriptures used there! Thank you for sharing.kirtland r.m. wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 4:29 am That lesson on Biblical and middle eastern history, here it is. Blood oaths ect. ect...http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/resp ... _oaths.htm]
But the prophet teaches that to sustain him is an oath-like covenant to him. According to the leaders, all of you are making an oath to them.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 7:55 amNo one makes an oath to the prophet in the temple.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 4:22 amDo you believe the Lord wants you to make an oath to the prophet in order to covenant with the Lord?kirtland r.m. wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 4:19 am
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.
I think that's stretching the sentiment a bit too far. He said sustaining leaders is oath-like, but it's not an oath and it's not an oath in the temple. If a leader thinks I have made an oath to them, they are mistaken.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 8:06 amBut the prophet teaches that to sustain him is an oath-like covenant to him. According to the leaders, all of you are making an oath to them.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 7:55 amNo one makes an oath to the prophet in the temple.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 4:22 am
Do you believe the Lord wants you to make an oath to the prophet in order to covenant with the Lord?
Thank you for the humorous pictures, but could you be more specific as to where I am being obtuse, as you say? I have only been arguing against being overly literal this whole time, so your response almost strikes me as not having read what I wrote or maybe accidentally responding to someone who insists on strict literalism (like Shawn?).ransomme wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 12:06 amSo when Jesus says that He is bread you think....Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 8:18 pmSo 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.
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.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.]
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.
Screenshot_20231017-083215.jpg
And when He says that He is water, you think...
Screenshot_20231017-083433.jpg
Please, don't be obtuse. It's ok to break this cycle and repent of this iniquity.
You can go to court and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why? Because what you are putting at stake is yours. Your reputation, your freedom. You can take marriage vows, or a vow of silence.
What you can't do is swear by heaven, Jesus' name, earth, your life, your mom's life, etc. etc.
And once again, the only people who swear by the threat of their heads do evil like this...At best BY's blood a teachings was a great perversion. Talk about mingling false doctrine with scripture. The Atonement and the sacrificial offerings are completely different than swearing by your head and bowels. And different from shedding your own blood to repent of sin. Seriously, it was like from the mouth of babes, but not in a good or honest way. When Jesus said be like a child, He did not mean to think on the level of a child. I suppose BY would get a kick out of the old detachable thumb trick.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)
You have your definition, they have theirs. One of these is not like the other. He literally said it is like an oath and it is binding upon you. At a minimum, this is a true lawyer at work. The gospel is far more simple than what the LDS org teaches. The fact that leaders believe this at all is blasphemous. To sustain is to obey. It's in your manuals. And sure, they tack on to that prayer and support, but "obey" is also there.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 9:35 am
I think that's stretching the sentiment a bit too far. He said sustaining leaders is oath-like, but it's not an oath and it's not an oath in the temple. If a leader thinks I have made an oath to them, they are mistaken.
My sustaining of church leaders looks like this: I pray for them to be led aright that every member of the body, from the head to the toe, is controlled by only the spirit of God.
He says that regarding oath swearing. Don't swear an oath, simply say, yes I will or no I won't.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:59 pm He also says "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay" but you don't take the same hardline approach with that pronouncement. Why is it okay to infer context and say, "Well he didn't mean that ALL our communication should be yes/no" in that case but not in the other? I can only believe it's to conform to your anti-temple stance.
What does "avenge the blood" mean? Also, from what I've studied, this may have had a direct correlation to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. So in a very literal sense, blood may have been spilt. BTW, if you've ever studied this tragic event, the details are nauseating."You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."
This is repeated through the additional covenants. So here we have a secret oath with a penalty of your life to be taken and you signified this by symbolically slitting your throat and belly and spilling your guts. Those symbols remain in the church at this very hour.“…[The sign is made by bringing the right arm to the square, the palm of the hand to the front, the fingers close together, and the thumb extended. The Officiator, again at the altar, demonstrates the sign and penalty as the descriptions are given.]
ELOHIM: This is the sign. The execution of the Penalty is represented by placing the thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side.
I will now explain the covenant and obligation of secrecy which are associated with this token, its name, sign, and penalty, which you will be required to take upon yourselves.
I will never reveal the second token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.
No, Brigham did not teach this. He was quite vocal on the opposite. It was not in the church zeitgeist really until Official Declaration 1 was added to the D&C, codifying the comments of Wilford Woodruff to that effect.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 9:52 amAlso, the leaders have preached since BY that they can do nothing other than lead you aright. Meaning, they can never lead you astray. According to them, God would kill them if they even tried to. This is false. Kind of goes hand-in-hand w/ the blood oaths. God doesn't kill you when you break an oath, you separate yourself from Him. "'I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." D&C 82:10Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 9:35 am
I think that's stretching the sentiment a bit too far. He said sustaining leaders is oath-like, but it's not an oath and it's not an oath in the temple. If a leader thinks I have made an oath to them, they are mistaken.
My sustaining of church leaders looks like this: I pray for them to be led aright that every member of the body, from the head to the toe, is controlled by only the spirit of God.
Also, it is church doctrine that your revelation cannot contradict their revelation. Regardless of what happens, they are always right. History has proven this false over and over again.
Do you really want to go there? Here's a list of 120+ instances when this false doctrine was taught:Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:24 am No, Brigham did not teach this. He was quite vocal on the opposite. It was not in the church zeitgeist really until Official Declaration 1 was added to the D&C, codifying the comments of Wilford Woodruff to that effect.
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 "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay"?Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:13 amHe says that regarding oath swearing. Don't swear an oath, simply say, yes I will or no I won't.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 3:59 pm He also says "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay" but you don't take the same hardline approach with that pronouncement. Why is it okay to infer context and say, "Well he didn't mean that ALL our communication should be yes/no" in that case but not in the other? I can only believe it's to conform to your anti-temple stance.
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:30 pm 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"?
So, you thought that when you broke your covenants the penalty that you agreed to have enacted upon you with the pantomiming the slitting of your throat simply meant that fairies bring you roses?TheDuke wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 7:21 pmI 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.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:46 pmDuke, 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.
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.
Come on Shawn, don't you know English? Can't you read the dictionary definition of blood oath? You must be a lazy learner.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:34 am We all committed to that fate if we revealed the name, sign, and/or token. That's a blood oath.
Your post is poorly worded. What do you mean by it?Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:32 am 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 "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay"?
The words of Jesus in plain English show that we are sinning in our communication.
Source:Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 2:30 pm 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"?
Humbug. What Brigham is saying here is very different than truncated pronouncements such as Wilford Woodruff. Brigham correctly adds the context of the people needing to have faith for this to occur. If they do not have faith, the Lord would allow wicked men to take the reigns. See this quote:Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:29 amDo you really want to go there? Here's a list of 120+ instances when this false doctrine was taught:Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:24 am No, Brigham did not teach this. He was quite vocal on the opposite. It was not in the church zeitgeist really until Official Declaration 1 was added to the D&C, codifying the comments of Wilford Woodruff to that effect.
https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/infal ... y-timeline
Feb. 23, 1862 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:289
“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth. Your leaders are trying to live their religion as far as [they are] capable of doing so.”
Brigham DID teach it. Joseph NEVER did. It's literally the longest-standing doctrine in the church and has the least amount of adjustment. And why? Because it deals directly with their supposed authority. It's a damned lie and directly contradicts the teachings of Christ and the church knows that it does, they are deceivers:
https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/hand-foot-eye
Humbug my butt. You know what this doctrine has turned into in the church today, and even what it meant back then. You could not question BY. And sure, you can pull quotes to the contrary, but that's just the thing, these men speak out of both sides of their face. Just like the current leaders.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:48 am Humbug. What Brigham is saying here is very different than truncated pronouncements such as Wilford Woodruff. Brigham correctly adds the context of the people needing to have faith for this to occur. If they do not have faith, the Lord would allow wicked men to take the reigns.
Yeah sure, because he speaks out both sides of his mouth. He has no problem contradicting himself. First, he says he's not a prophet. Then he says everything he says is scripture. He has never had consistency.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:48 am Many, many quotes could be brought to bear on this point.
That quote shows that Brigham understood quite well that the sweeping off of leadership depended completely on the people living their religion. If wicked men have crept in to lead the church astray, it is because the people were not found doing their duty, just as Brigham said. WW left off the important constraints in a woefully publicized comment and that has put the nail in the coffin ever since.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 11:01 amYeah sure, because he speaks out both sides of his mouth. He has no problem contradicting himself. First, he says he's not a prophet. Then he says everything he says is scripture. He has never had consistency.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:48 am Many, many quotes could be brought to bear on this point.
RW quote is quite clear.
Feb. 23, 1862 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:289
“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth. Your leaders are trying to live their religion as far as [they are] capable of doing so.”
This is undoubtedly the origins of WW's false doctrine.
"for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth". Yeah, like when the Lord didn't do just that when BY taught the Priesthood ban, blood atonement, Adam/God, and the list goes on. This shows how BY was quite unfamiliar with the scriptures. They teach that the Lord allows them to have joy in their works for a season.
Struck a nerve, I see. Well hopefully you can at least see this came from Joseph. The doctrine doesn't inherently divide families, but when the truth is on the line members of a family may individually choose to stand on one side or the other of it until that line grows so wide that they can no longer hold hands across it.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:52 amHumbug my butt. You know what this doctrine has turned into in the church today, and even what it meant back then. You could not question BY. And sure, you can pull quotes to the contrary, but that's just the thing, these men speak out of both sides of their face. Just like the current leaders.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 10:48 am Humbug. What Brigham is saying here is very different than truncated pronouncements such as Wilford Woodruff. Brigham correctly adds the context of the people needing to have faith for this to occur. If they do not have faith, the Lord would allow wicked men to take the reigns.
Regardless of showing by quotes on both sides of the issue, the philosophy is anti-Christian is in full force today. And the church knows they are teaching false doctrine through deception.
This damn doctrine has torn my family apart. It is used to divide families. My SIL told me that she'd jump off a cliff if the prophet told her too. That's a cult.
False doctrine has that effect on me.
The Eye represents prophets, seers, and revelators. You couldn’t write a better description in so few words. Even those who have been inspired at times have the ability to transgress. Nobody is perfect. What is our responsibility in the event this person transgresses? We pluck them out. We don’t follow them. The Lord never says that He’ll remove them, but that we are to remove ourselves from them. And these “transgressions” are not limited to spiritual things. It can be anything. To transgress is to violate a law, to sin.
Because it is always possible for any member of society to transgress or lead astray, Christ instructs us in verses 44 and 45 about the importance of where we can place our trust. To be instructed by Heaven is the only sure source. The Book of Mormon adds a supporting witness to this teaching. In 2 Nephi 28:30 we learn that the Lord Himself will teach us, and if we choose to follow the counsel of any person without first receiving a witness of the Spirit, there may be severe consequences:
31 “Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
Deception through omission
Now, this is where things get a little crazy. I had to do a double-take when I first read this and couldn’t believe what the church had done. They wrote the following as part their introduction to JST Mark 9:
“Jesus compares cutting off an offending hand or foot to discontinuing associations that may lead one astray.”
Did you catch that, or not catch that in this case? There are only three elements to this parable, which one did they intentionally leave out? The eye!! Why in the world do you think they didn’t include the eye in this description? And not only that, they openly admit that this parable taught by Christ is about “discontinuing associations that may lead one astray.” Yep, you read that correctly. They actually used those words. As I noted in the beginning, one of the longest-held faith traditions in the LDS church is that the prophet, “can never lead you astray.” Church leaders know, through their own omission, that they have directly contradicted the teachings of Jesus Christ for generations and they couldn’t openly condemn themselves.
That duty is to the scriptures, not to all the false doctrines he tried pawning off on the people. Besides, do you really think the saints were doing their duty? They were put under condemnation by the Lord, they got kicked out of Nauvoo for disobedience and left the promised land entirely. They sucked up every falsehood BY taught. They were far from doing their duty.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 12:06 pm the sweeping off of leadership depended completely on the people living their religion.