NOM

http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/year-of-p ... pisode-38/

This is some crazy..

The Taliban comes to mind. Mormonism is a religion of fanatics.

2bizE wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:22 pm The Taliban comes to mind. Mormonism is a religion of fanatics.

I haven't listened to this episode yet. I plan to but I am familiar with some of the things it speaks of.

Still, this seems like an entirely unfair statement. Not that I disagree with you that Mormonism is a conduit to fanaticism but it seems abundantly clear that ALL religion is a conduit to fanaticism. It seems, to me at least, that the trend of religions (including mormonism) to lean towards pragmatism these days is a very modern phenomenon. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though.

I used to wonder, as I was growing up, why we never had any lessons about the Saints once they got to the Salt Lake Valley (except for the crickets and seagulls, of course.) At one point, I even considered that perhaps we just don't have enough documentation from this particular time period.......... now I know better

My relatives; ggg grandfather and grandmother joined in England and immigrated to Illinois then saved up enough money to come to salt lake in 1850. They would have lived through this reformation rhetoric of 1856. It's crazy that they stayed and he actually ended up with a second wife later.

This whole teaching of blood atonement is just crazy. Im pissed they got caught up in this golden plate, peep stone, authoritarian church. It's the shi$&y gift that will never leave me.

Am I not getting what blood atonement is? I'm not reading extremely closely, but it sounds like justified murder. We righteous judges will kill you if we say you're doing evil.

If that's it in a nutshell, it's interesting to me that we're so weirded out by BY's speeches, but the church keeps Section 132 in the canon, yammers on in the essays and never once looks askance at "scripture" threatening Emma with death.

Am I not getting something? I don't see a difference.

I listened and there is something that is so consistent and yet so damning about the discourses of Brigham Young. There is no distinction between the "Gospel" as taught (which included plural marriage), and the decisions given to others what to choose. No one is questioning whether plural marriage is really part of the gospel or not--they just swallow that hook, line and sinker,...and the question is living it or going to hell for not living it.

Why does no one say: "Hey Brigham...you are full or crap! Plural marriage is NOT the gospel of Christ." NO one is asking that....and I bet I know the answer right off: Blood Atonement.

The guy justified murder.

You can't change doctrines if they come from God and are absolutes. What a cult...right from the beginning.

Charlotte wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:38 pm Am I not getting what blood atonement is? I'm not reading extremely closely, but it sounds like justified murder. We righteous judges will kill you if we say you're doing evil.

If that's it in a nutshell, it's interesting to me that we're so weirded out by BY's speeches, but the church keeps Section 132 in the canon, yammers on in the essays and never once looks askance at "scripture" threatening Emma with death.

Am I not getting something? I don't see a difference.

Blood atonement is the idea that Christ's sacrifice is not enough for some sins committed in this world. And to be truly forgiven and redeemed you have to offer up your own life as a sacrifice to god. It was taught in the early church.

I think you are correct when you talk about it relating to 132. Emma threatened with destruction if she did not comply. And in 1856 it was enforced.

20/20hind wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:20 pm

Charlotte wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:38 pm Am I not getting what blood atonement is? I'm not reading extremely closely, but it sounds like justified murder. We righteous judges will kill you if we say you're doing evil.

If that's it in a nutshell, it's interesting to me that we're so weirded out by BY's speeches, but the church keeps Section 132 in the canon, yammers on in the essays and never once looks askance at "scripture" threatening Emma with death.

Am I not getting something? I don't see a difference.

Blood atonement is the idea that Christ's sacrifice is not enough for some sins committed in this world. And to be truly forgiven and redeemed you have to offer up your own life as a sacrifice to god. It was taught in the early church.

I think you are correct when you talk about it relating to 132. Emma threatened with destruction if she did not comply. And in 1856 it was enforced.

Wikipedia article on blood atonement:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement

Again, I don't get the usually dramatic reaction and backpeddling to deflect attention away from the dread "Blood Atonement!" Apologists seem to be saying: Not godly, not doctrine, stop mucking around and disparaging old-fashioned men living in the Wild West. But Section 132, that was straight from God. We just wrote three polygamy essays predicated on it.

20/20hind wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:20 pmBlood atonement is the idea that Christ's sacrifice is not enough for some sins committed in this world. And to be truly forgiven and redeemed you have to offer up your own life as a sacrifice to god. It was taught in the early church.

Sounds like the infinite atonement was not infinite enough. That's what you get when mathematicians prove that there are multiple sizes of infinity.

Its insane.

Its totally and completely insane. BY and the other "Elders" got to decide who deserved it as well. Justifiable murder--no trial---just a decision by the Lord Brigham Young.