Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

You Must Spill Your Own Blood for Forgiveness Mormons!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest started a topic You Must Spill Your Own Blood for Forgiveness Mormons!

    You Must Spill Your Own Blood for Forgiveness Mormons!

    "Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion and its first prophet, taught that certain sins were so so serious as to put the sinner "beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ." For these fallen sinners, their "only hope" lay in having "their own blood shed to atone." Smith made clear that the shedding of "innocent blood" (including killing anyone less than eight years old, the age of accountability in Mormon teaching) was an unpardonable sin which, along with failing to keep their covenants or betraying their testimonies, could lead to eternal damnation. In Smith's theology, the doctrine applied only to Mormons, but it was widely viewed as providing justification for shedding the blood of apostates.

    Brigham Young took the doctrine of blood atonement further than Smith. According to historian Juanita Brooks, "Young advocated and preached it without compromise." Young, in an 1857 fire-and-brimstone sermon, demanded to know whether his his flock would have the courage to do what was necessary should a fellow Mormon commit an unforgiveable sin: "Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed his blood?" Some sinners, Young preached, who are "now angels to the devil" could have been saved if only some among their Mormon brethren would have "spilled their blood on the ground as a smoking incense to the almighty."


    "February 8, 1857 sermon

    "Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved... and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he 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 and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, 'shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?'

    "All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant....

    "I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance... if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the Devil... I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them....

    "This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it....if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind."

    (Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857)


    source: http://www.famous-trials.com/mountai.../926-atonement

    While today's Mormons have repudiated the "Blood Atonement" doctrine of Smith and Young, it was pacticed in early Mormonism. Are there any Mormons on this forum who will publicly repudiate it? The Danites were a well-known group of "enforcers" who committed murder, killing "apostatesd" who denied Mormonism. Also, certain sins, such as adultery, were to be atoned for by the sinner's blood as in this case:

    "
    John D. Lee on Blood Atonement (from his confession)

    In his confession, Lee offered a chilling account of one instance of blood atonement in early Utah:

    "Rasmos Anderson was a Danish man who came to Utah... He had married a widow lady somewhat older than himself... At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery... they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter. This Council was composed of Klingensmith and his two counselors; it was the Bishop's Council. Without giving Anderson any chance to defend himself or make a statement, the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections... His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried... she being directed to tell those who should inquire after her husband that he had gone to California.

    "Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey Council. Anderson got up... and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the "Almighty God." They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave..

    "As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash... She obeyed their orders.... Anderson was killed just before the Mountain Meadows massacre. The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act. It was justified by all the people, for they were bound by the same covenants, and the least word of objection to thus treating the man who had broken his covenant would have brought the same fate upon the person who was so foolish as to raise his voce against any act committed by order of the Church authorities." (source: Ibid.- for the grammatically challenged, IBID. means the previous citation).

    Question: Why wasn't Joseph Smith's throat slit for his adulterous activities?

    Quotes from Smith:

    “I [am] opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.”

    - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 296, 1949

    Young simply taught what Smith had instructed him to teach.

    Again, which Mormons today will repudiate the doctrine of Blood Atonement as taught in early Mormonism?

    The Blood Atonement teaching of Mormonism exists today: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no56.htm






  • Bonnie
    replied
    Originally posted by NRA-Jeff
    People who are extremist antiMormons probably HAVE forgotten that:

    1. The murders didn't take place in the temple.
    2. The murders were committed by a member of the REORGANIZED LDS Church--now called the Community of Christ.
    3. That church is recognized as a CHRISTIAN church by the National Council of Churches, which the Episcopalian church is also a member of--so are Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist churches.
    4. This is a transparent, sleazy attempt to smear the LDS church and its members, who had NOTHING to do with those murders.



    Death stalked Michael Servetus--"death" in the form of the founder of your TULIP cult's soteriology..

    (BTW, I used the word "extremist" in this post, so you gotta keep your promise....).
    Only the ultra-liberal ELCA church is a member--the LCMS is not. Just an FYI.

    Leave a comment:


  • NRA-Jeff
    replied
    Originally posted by Magdalena View Post

    jamesone5... I dont think quetzloc is mormon. There may be some misunderstanding there.
    Understatement of the week nominee right there....

    Leave a comment:


  • Bonnie
    replied
    Originally posted by Magdalena View Post

    jamesone5... I dont think quetzloc is mormon. There may be some misunderstanding there.
    I don't think so, either. nt

    Leave a comment:


  • Magdalena
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesone5 View Post

    Why then, did you use this statement as part of you evidence if you don;t in part agree with him?



    It seems that you cannot get beyond the question of "was the thief beside Jesus on the Cross Saved?"

    Are you taking the Power of Christ to save a lost sinner from Him?

    I solidly Believe He was-----as Jesus said this"

    Luke 23:43 {NKJV}

    And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

    Case closed from Christ's very words.

    You or you prophet have to make the case that Jesus lied because you are trying to find hidden meanings in what Christ DID NOT SAY to support your Mormon construct
    jamesone5... I dont think quetzloc is mormon. There may be some misunderstanding there.

    Leave a comment:


  • NRA-Jeff
    replied
    Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post

    I hadn't realized this, but it is blatantly evil to say there was no repentance, when the Good thief turned to Christ. It is a lie of Satan.
    Wouldn't it be a lie of Satan to say that a man had repented if that man really hadn't repented?

    And is "good thief" a real thing? Doesn't the bible say that there is no such thing? (There is none good etc.)
    To antis, is O. C.'s brother a good thief because what he steals feeds the jihad against us LDS people?

    Leave a comment:


  • quetzloc
    replied
    Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post

    I hadn't realized this, but it is blatantly evil to say there was no repentance, when the Good thief turned to Christ. It is a lie of Satan.
    yeah, Kimballs book is quite eye-opening into his disgust for the Biblical version of Christ.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by quetzloc View Post

    Absolutely, I do notice that, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However their silence is deafening. That said, if they did renounce it, what then? This then begs the following question: why don't they remove the offensive doctrine from every text, record, speech, etc? Aside from the obvious that it would be spurning whoever taught the false doctrine at the time, which hits multiple major leaders, but it would also leave gaping holes in classic important works. It would be like removing Deuteronomy because some are offended by the laws it contains.


    I'd also like to know if they believe Jesus lied to the thief on the cross when He said he would be in heaven that day, since thieves can't be saved until their sins are redeemed through works.... that guy wasn't coming off that cross until he died, thus no chance to redeem himself.


    Spencer Kimball says Jesus lied, since they hadn't repented after works. (for context, read p 160-170...)

    Spencer Kimball. tMoF, p 166. “Another mistaken idea is that the thief on the cross was forgiven of his sins when the dying Christ answered “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”(luke 23:43)These men on the cross were thieves. How could the Lord forgive a malefactor? They had broken laws…We may be sure that the Savior’s instructions to the thief on the cross were comparable to his instructions to the woman caught in adultery: “go your way and transform yourself and repent.”
    I hadn't realized this, but it is blatantly evil to say there was no repentance, when the Good thief turned to Christ. It is a lie of Satan.

    Leave a comment:


  • quetzloc
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesone5 View Post

    Why then, did you use this statement as part of you evidence if you don;t in part agree with him?



    It seems that you cannot get beyond the question of "was the thief beside Jesus on the Cross Saved?"

    Are you taking the Power of Christ to save a lost sinner from Him?

    I solidly Believe He was-----as Jesus said this"

    Luke 23:43 {NKJV}

    And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

    Case closed from Christ's very words.

    You or you prophet have to make the case that Jesus lied because you are trying to find hidden meanings in what Christ DID NOT SAY to support your Mormon construct
    You really don't get it, do you? This is my final attempt to explain your multiple misguided responses.

    I agree with you on that Christ spoke the truth on the Cross. Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

    Allow me to explain to you how accusations with evidence work: if you are going to charge someone with believing something, it is good practice to also include the evidence backing up your statement. That is what I did. I asserted a statement about Kimball, then included the evidence from his book validating my claim; if you notice, no Mormon has chimed in to counter my claim, however you have had a heyday of using the opposite technique: accusations without evidence, with an application of misconstruing my words. Notice the difference?
    Last edited by quetzloc; 07-10-18, 01:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesone5
    replied
    Originally posted by quetzloc View Post

    Ever hear of the phrase 'soda straw situational awareness'? You are so stuck on an incorrect perception that you truly are missing the big picture. Or, to put it more bluntly, you are wrong in claiming I said Jesus lied.

    Case in point, you obviously missed the paragraph before where you start quoting, where I set up the question as to whether or not MORMONS believe Spencer Kimball was correct:

    "I'd also like to know if they believe Jesus lied to the thief on the cross when He said he would be in heaven that day, since thieves can't be saved until their sins are redeemed through works.... that guy wasn't coming off that cross until he died, thus no chance to redeem himself"

    This question was then followed up by citing where Kimball makes the claim that Jesus lied:

    "Spencer Kimball. tMoF, p 166. “Another mistaken idea is that the thief on the cross was forgiven of his sins when the dying Christ answered “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”(luke 23:43)These men on the cross were thieves. How could the Lord forgive a malefactor? They had broken laws…We may be sure that the Savior’s instructions to the thief on the cross were comparable to his instructions to the woman caught in adultery: “go your way and transform yourself and repent.”

    What part of "Spencer Kimball (not Quetzloc) said Jesus lied" are you unable to comprehend? I am not Spencer Kimball. Ergo, you foolishly continue to incorrectly assume a false line of thinking.
    Why then, did you use this statement as part of you evidence if you don;t in part agree with him?

    Spencer Kimball says Jesus lied, since they hadn't repented after works. (for context, read p 160-170...)----quetzloc
    It seems that you cannot get beyond the question of "was the thief beside Jesus on the Cross Saved?"

    Are you taking the Power of Christ to save a lost sinner from Him?

    I solidly Believe He was-----as Jesus said this"

    Luke 23:43 {NKJV}

    And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

    Case closed from Christ's very words.

    You or you prophet have to make the case that Jesus lied because you are trying to find hidden meanings in what Christ DID NOT SAY to support your Mormon construct

    Leave a comment:


  • quetzloc
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesone5 View Post



    I read the commentary but this sums up what you think of Jesus. That cat;s out of the bag so to speak.

    You think JESUS LIED.
    Ever hear of the phrase 'soda straw situational awareness'? You are so stuck on an incorrect perception that you truly are missing the big picture. Or, to put it more bluntly, you are wrong in claiming I said Jesus lied.

    Case in point, you obviously missed the paragraph before where you start quoting, where I set up the question as to whether or not MORMONS believe Spencer Kimball was correct:

    "I'd also like to know if they believe Jesus lied to the thief on the cross when He said he would be in heaven that day, since thieves can't be saved until their sins are redeemed through works.... that guy wasn't coming off that cross until he died, thus no chance to redeem himself"

    This question was then followed up by citing where Kimball makes the claim that Jesus lied:

    "Spencer Kimball. tMoF, p 166. “Another mistaken idea is that the thief on the cross was forgiven of his sins when the dying Christ answered “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”(luke 23:43)These men on the cross were thieves. How could the Lord forgive a malefactor? They had broken laws…We may be sure that the Savior’s instructions to the thief on the cross were comparable to his instructions to the woman caught in adultery: “go your way and transform yourself and repent.”

    What part of "Spencer Kimball (not Quetzloc) said Jesus lied" are you unable to comprehend? I am not Spencer Kimball. Ergo, you foolishly continue to incorrectly assume a false line of thinking.
    Last edited by quetzloc; 07-10-18, 12:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesone5
    replied
    Originally posted by quetzloc View Post

    Might I suggest you reread my entire commentary... I think you misunderstood what I was saying; to say the least, by delivering incriminating evidence against Kimball, I was not defending him. Nor do I follow his rock-in-hat wizard... er, seer.
    Spencer Kimball says Jesus lied, since they hadn't repented after works. (for context, read p 160-170...)----quetzloc
    I read the commentary but this sums up what you think of Jesus. That cat;s out of the bag so to speak.

    You think JESUS LIED.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barrd
    replied
    Originally posted by quetzloc View Post

    Sir, allow me to elucidate, so that you have a complete understanding of what I meant.


    Only the individual can determine, after looking back at their life since their original baptism, whether or not they have strayed from following Christ, and wish to use a second baptism as the outward evidence to their community of the rededication and commitment of their life to the Lord.

    A LDS leader does not hold the 'keys to the kingdom', nor do they hold any spiritual sway, as to whether or not anyone else must be rebaptized. that is not their role. The need for a human intercessor (the lone high priest) was removed by Christ when He died. Mormons, starting with Brigham Young demanding mass baptism in Utah, created a non-biblical belief system.

    Do you now understand?

    My original comment was highlighting the difference between the Christian belief of a personal decision, as stated in my original addition to your commentary. I was not disagreeing with you, but further cementing your statement. You misconstrued my original comment as somehow being an affirmation for the LDS viewpoint, which it isn't.

    For as you said: Their so-called authority was not all that authoritative as it seems.

    Kings to you, so how about we bury this hatchet?
    I have this really, really cool idea...
    Tell me what you think of it, please?

    How about we let God be God. He's had a lot more practice at it than any of us has....and, so far, He's done a way better job than we ever could....

    Just a suggestion...

    But, as for me and my house....


    We will serve the Lord.


    Oh, and btw.....this is not aimed at you specifically...but at every single one of us. Me, included...

    Leave a comment:


  • quetzloc
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesone5 View Post

    What you think I repeated the whole thing verbatim?

    A statement with a question mark behind it, is a clear giveaway--like this:




    You have not told me how you equate a Chruch mandate with a personal decision.

    Just to be very clear--I will ask you the question again.
    Sir, allow me to elucidate, so that you have a complete understanding of what I meant.


    Only the individual can determine, after looking back at their life since their original baptism, whether or not they have strayed from following Christ, and wish to use a second baptism as the outward evidence to their community of the rededication and commitment of their life to the Lord.

    A LDS leader does not hold the 'keys to the kingdom', nor do they hold any spiritual sway, as to whether or not anyone else must be rebaptized. that is not their role. The need for a human intercessor (the lone high priest) was removed by Christ when He died. Mormons, starting with Brigham Young demanding mass baptism in Utah, created a non-biblical belief system.

    Do you now understand?

    My original comment was highlighting the difference between the Christian belief of a personal decision, as stated in my original addition to your commentary. I was not disagreeing with you, but further cementing your statement. You misconstrued my original comment as somehow being an affirmation for the LDS viewpoint, which it isn't.

    For as you said: Their so-called authority was not all that authoritative as it seems.

    Kings to you, so how about we bury this hatchet?

    Leave a comment:


  • quetzloc
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesone5 View Post




    Once again---you are pretending you are the gatekeepers to heaven.

    That role belongs to Christ as the Way to the Father [John 14:6]--not the Mormon church as another way.




    Say what? a prophet in your Chruch very arrogantly tells you that Jesus lied and you are still willing to follow him?

    The dark underbelly of the Mormon Chruch becomes more apparent each day
    Might I suggest you reread my entire commentary... I think you misunderstood what I was saying; to say the least, by delivering incriminating evidence against Kimball, I was not defending him. Nor do I follow his rock-in-hat wizard... er, seer.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X