LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
RandFan said:
BYU offers theological courses. You can get a doctorate in philosophy in the field of theology (known formally as Doctor of Religious Education) but it doesn't have a lot of weight in the Mormon Church. It's certainly not required for religious leadership.
Click to expand...
Good to get the expert opinion. But it sounds a bit as if the result is a scholar who is Mormon, rather than a course in Mormon scholarship. As I imagine it ought to be if the college is any good.
 
RandFan said:
India? They aren't the "chosen" people AKA descendants of Abraham. God did not have a covenant with them.

But then that raises the question, why not? For those who have not seen it I strongly urge you to see God On Trial. That's the short and most salient version. The entire video can be seen here.

It is, in small part, a very powerful and compelling argument against the idea of a chosen race. The concept of a "chosen race" is tribalistic, it is solipsistic, it is provincial. Why would a benevolent deity play favorites?

Akiba: Did the mothers of Egypt find that Adoni was just [for killing their first born children]?
Schmidt: But Adoni is our god.
Akiba: Did god not make the Egyptians? If not him then who? Some other god?
Click to expand...

There's a nice little essay floating around the web called IIRC 'The other people' that goes into a bit of detail on this. I'm not much of a biblical scholar, but it's interpreting some pretty unambiguous passages from genesis that do say that the god of the old testament was one of many, and that he created the lineage of adam and eve, but not any of the other tribes, and that the mind games he played with adam and eve, the lies he told them, etc. ********** up and corrupted their bloodline forever with traits that show up as body shame/nudity taboo.

http://www.paganlibrary.com/fundies/other_people.php

Do I believe this? No more than I do any other bit of the mythology. Still fun to throw stuff like this out there to confound fundies who cherry pick whatever little passage supports their current tirade and hope you won't read the whole damned thing.
 
dafydd said:
''Religious genius'' is a contradictio in terminis. There are geniuses who are religious, but that is not the same thing and that does not apply to the fraud Joseph Smith. Calling him a religious genius is like calling Beatrix Potter a fantasy rabbit genius. At least her tales are entertaining. Mark Twain was right when he called the BOM ''chloroform in print''.
Click to expand...

Also disagree. I don't think religious genius is a contradiction. There are some who think you can't be a genius if you are "evil". I also disagree.
 
Craig4 said:
I can easily see something like Mormonism which may have begun as only a short con growing beyond the control of Smith and him simply afraid to let it go. It's a bit like holding a wolf by the ears. At some point you just can't stop being the prophet. Maybe at some point you believe what you're saying. For all we know, Smith simply got addicted to his power over people or he never found a point where he could escape from the con that went out of control.

Obviously. we can dismiss any truth to Smith or Young's claims but since we don't know their true thoughts when perpetrating the scam it's hard to say what they did or did not believe.
Click to expand...

Insightful.
 
RandFan said:
India? They aren't the "chosen" people AKA descendants of Abraham. God did not have a covenant with them.
Click to expand...

I can't remember which one, but I thought that one of the apocryphal gospels had Jesus (and his brother?) going to India. My flawed recollection has him attending a wedding, and the bride and groom were so moved by him that they didn't consummate the marriage, instead dedicating their lives to God.
 
carlitos said:
I can't remember which one, but I thought that one of the apocryphal gospels had Jesus (and his brother?) going to India. My flawed recollection has him attending a wedding, and the bride and groom were so moved by him that they didn't consummate the marriage, instead dedicating their lives to God.
Click to expand...

Look who's name popped up.

A number of authors have taken these accounts and have expanded upon them in their own works. For example, in her book The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus's 17-Year Journey to the East, Elizabeth Clare Prophet cites Buddhist manuscripts that allegedly provide evidence that Jesus traveled to India, Nepal, Ladakh and Tibet.[12] However, she reprints objections and rebuttals of Life of Saint Issa, citing both sides of the controversy in detail.[12] She observes, "The fact that Douglas failed to see a copy of a manuscript was no more decisive proof that it did not exist than Notovitch's claim that it did."[12][Note 1]

Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax.[6]
—Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are


 
carlitos said:
I can't remember which one, but I thought that one of the apocryphal gospels had Jesus (and his brother?) going to India. My flawed recollection has him attending a wedding, and the bride and groom were so moved by him that they didn't consummate the marriage, instead dedicating their lives to God.
Click to expand...

tsig said:
A number of authors have taken these accounts and have expanded upon them in their own works. For example, in her book The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus's 17-Year Journey to the East, Elizabeth Clare Prophet cites Buddhist manuscripts that allegedly provide evidence that Jesus traveled to India, Nepal, Ladakh and Tibet.[12] However, she reprints objections and rebuttals of Life of Saint Issa, citing both sides of the controversy in detail.[12] She observes, "The fact that Douglas failed to see a copy of a manuscript was no more decisive proof that it did not exist than Notovitch's claim that it did."[12][Note 1]

Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax.[6]
—Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
Click to expand...
I love JREF. Thanks. :) Ah the human ego. If there is a god surely he visited my neck of the woods.
 
Found it - I was actually thinking of the Acts of Thomas, which is different from the hoax books written here in the 19th / 20th century about Saint Issa.

Thomas was either Jesus' twin brother or the corporeal part of the trinity, and he went to India and had some adventures.
 
Cat Tale said:
Okay, I'll bite. Blood atonement in what regards? I mean, I found an early article in the Deseret News (I know, an LDS paper) May 10, 1882, but still it describes three different definitions for blood atonement.

#1. The atonement of Jesus Christ. LDS believe.
#2. Capital punishment, for the crime of murder. LDS believe(d).
#3. As a means to keep members under control. NO doctrine or teachings.

Here's a link to a scan of the original article, I hope the link works. Then on the right side it'll give you drop down menu for pages. You'll want page 8, click on drop down menu and click on "Blood atonement." and the article will come up -- I hope.

But based on this, I can see how the LDS would practice #1 & #2. What evidence is there that #3 was practiced? And even if it was, for the record, it is no longer.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you simply post a link to what you wanted us to read?
In any case, it's clear that Mormons and non-Mormons have very different takes on blood atonement, but you know that because you've read the linked material presented here.

It seems Mormons claim blood atonement was never a teaching and certainly is not at the present time.

OK.
I'd be embarrassed to admit such a thing formed part of my religion, so I can accept that point of view.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blood_Atonement
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/atonement.html
http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/bloodatn
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Blood_atonement
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/murder.htm

Concept or teaching, blood atonement is no longer accepted among the LDS.
This shows the LDS evolves.
Is there a move to repudiate the BOA, since it has been shown to be a work of fiction?
 
pakeha said:
Concept or teaching, blood atonement is no longer accepted among the LDS.
This shows the LDS evolves.
Is there a move to repudiate the BOA, since it has been shown to be a work of fiction?
Click to expand...
"Blood atonement" is not and never was LDS Doctrine.
The Pearl of Great Price is LDS Scripture, and as such is revered and cherished LDS Doctrine.
 
Janadele said:
The great and noble Prophet Brigham Young said …
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, well the "great and noble Prophet" also said this:

Brigham Young said:
"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).
Click to expand...
Blood doctrine was scripture.
 
pakeha said:
In any case, it's clear that Mormons and non-Mormons have very different takes on blood atonement, but you know that because you've read the linked material presented here.

It seems Mormons claim blood atonement was never a teaching and certainly is not at the present time.
Click to expand...

I think the point is, though, that there are/were several different kinds of uniquely Mormon blood atonement (aside from the universal Christian idea of Christ's blood atonement), and it's not as easy as saying blood atonement was or wasn't part of the early church, because there were differing definitions.

The period article highlights two obvious ones: blood atonement (i.e. capital punishment by firing squad) for legally convicted murders, vs. blood atonement by killing those who commit the "sin" of apostacizing from the church.

The period article says the first definitely is church doctrine (at that time), while the second isn't.

Each of the links you posted addresses at least some of the different definitions, but like a lot on this topic, they seem to mix and match the various meanings.

There are also other nuances, such as whether the church believed they had the authority to kill someone on their own, whether the church could only condemn a person through secular law, whether the person must kill themselves, what crimes/sins are subject to blood atonement (one of your links mentions an example where it was used for adultery--not surprising in an era when rape was also a capital crime, but not the first thing one thinks of concerning blood atonement).

To show the long-lasting echoes of the version of blood atonement where it's a form of capital punishment after legal conviction of murder, death by firing squad was a choice in Utah up until recently, and there's the example of convicted murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad

Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by five anonymous officers on June 18, 2010. In February 1996, Gardner threatened to sue to force the state of Utah to execute him by firing squad. He said that he preferred this method of execution because of his "Mormon heritage." Gardner also felt that lawmakers were trying to eliminate the firing squad, in opposition to popular opinion in Utah, because of concern over the state's image in the 2002 Winter Olympics. As of 2012, Gardner is the last person to be executed in the United States by a method other than lethal injection.
Click to expand...

From the Deseret News article linked in the Wikipedia footnote:

[Gardner] was happy to learn that a majority of Utahns disagree with a bill that would eliminate the firing squad.
"That's what I like to hear," Gardner said.
He believes lawmakers are proposing the change because of the 2002 Olympics.
"I think it's basically an image deal . . . They didn't want people to say, `These (expletive) Utahns, they're barbaric. This ain't the 1800s in the 1990s,' " he said. "I just hope they keep it."
Click to expand...

pakeha said:
I'd be embarrassed to admit such a thing formed part of my religion, so I can accept that point of view.
Click to expand...

:confused: Protestant/Catholic Christians don't seem to be embarrassed over Leviticus, and this seems no worse than anything in there.

Concept or teaching, blood atonement is no longer accepted among the LDS.
This shows the LDS evolves.
Is there a move to repudiate the BOA, since it has been shown to be a work of fiction?
Click to expand...

I wish Skyrider44 would come back and expound further on the active LDS he mentioned who consider the Book of Mormon "a work of the 19th century."
 
pakeha said:
Why didn't you simply post a link to what you wanted us to read?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I tried and it didn't let me. When I'd test the link it went back to the first page. I didn't know what to do, but I wanted to make the entire article available to those who wanted to see it, so...

What I like about the article is it shows how complicated the term really is. There are three different meanings. Obviously, the church believed (and still does) in Blood atonement regarding the crucifixion and shedding of blood for our sins. If using the term blood atonement to mean execution of convicted murderers, that's still practiced today as well. If you mean, blood atonement as in to track down and kill apostates, I sincerely doubt that it happened, or if it did only by self-declared renegades and it was not part of the church itself. To be honest, I don't have enough evidence to make an arguement for or against the latter.

Edited to add that Capital Punishment is practiced in various places throughout the US by law.

I find it unclear in Young's own words. I grant that Young's words may be construed to mean apostates from the church, however, look at his words more carefully. He says, "that he [the offender] cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin and be saved..." There is only one sin that I know of where the church has ever said that the spilling of the offender's blood can be required, and that's murder. When it comes to apostasy (denying the Holy Ghost) we've already commented here several times that there is NO forgiveness for that crime, thus the shedding of blood would make no difference in the eternal life of that man. The death penalty seems to have been very typical throughout the midwestern US at that time, and probably the entire US, though I'm more versed in the midwest.

Is there a move to repudiate the BOA, since it has been shown to be a work of fiction?
Click to expand...
Doubtful.
 
Last edited:
Pup said:
I think the point is, though, that there are/were several different kinds of uniquely Mormon blood atonement (aside from the universal Christian idea of Christ's blood atonement), and it's not as easy as saying blood atonement was or wasn't part of the early church, because there were differing definitions.

The period article highlights two obvious ones: blood atonement (i.e. capital punishment by firing squad) for legally convicted murders, vs. blood atonement by killing those who commit the "sin" of apostacizing from the church.

The period article says the first definitely is church doctrine (at that time), while the second isn't.

Each of the links you posted addresses at least some of the different definitions, but like a lot on this topic, they seem to mix and match the various meanings.

There are also other nuances, such as whether the church believed they had the authority to kill someone on their own, whether the church could only condemn a person through secular law, whether the person must kill themselves, what crimes/sins are subject to blood atonement (one of your links mentions an example where it was used for adultery--not surprising in an era when rape was also a capital crime, but not the first thing one thinks of concerning blood atonement).

To show the long-lasting echoes of the version of blood atonement where it's a form of capital punishment after legal conviction of murder, death by firing squad was a choice in Utah up until recently, and there's the example of convicted murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad

From the Deseret News article linked in the Wikipedia footnote:

:confused: Protestant/Catholic Christians don't seem to be embarrassed over Leviticus, and this seems no worse than anything in there.


I wish Skyrider44 would come back and expound further on the active LDS he mentioned who consider the Book of Mormon "a work of the 19th century."
Click to expand...
Thank you for that analysis. Very helpful. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom