Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wes

Brigham Young & The Journal Of Discourses

Recommended Posts

After starting a thread titled, "Questions And Investigation Of Mormonism, Why is this so often considered anti-mormon?" it was suggested that I start another one based on the following statement by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses:

â??Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and PUT A JAVELIN THROUGH BOTH OF THEM, YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, AND THEY WOULD ATONE FOR THEIR SINS, AND BE RECEIVED INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would DO IT WITH CLEAN HANDS... â??There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, YOUR OWN BLOOD MUST ATONE FOR IT;...â? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)

Here is a link to the original thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=38693

I am curious as to the context in which this statement was made because it gives me reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of Mormonism.

Share this post


Link to post
After starting a thread titled, "Questions And Investigation Of Mormonism, Why is this so often considered anti-mormon?" it was suggested that I start another one based on the following statement by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses:

â??Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and PUT A JAVELIN THROUGH BOTH OF THEM, YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, AND THEY WOULD ATONE FOR THEIR SINS, AND BE RECEIVED INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would DO IT WITH CLEAN HANDS... â??There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, YOUR OWN BLOOD MUST ATONE FOR IT;...â? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)

Here is a link to the original thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=38693

I am curious as to the context in which this statement was made because it gives me reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of Mormonism.

I do not have that 3rd volume, so i cannot read for myself, but i can say that if it was in the book, whats the real problem? journal of discourses is not morman docrtrine nor is it a directive in any manner for members to follow; it is just what it says. it is a discourse. I;E; ramblings. thoughts,ideas, e.t.c... of a non inspired nature. It is not nor was it ever intended to be representative of this church. What beleife are yu of? maybe catholic,methodist,jehovah witness, born again,e,v? Whichever beleife yu are of, has not your leader{s} ever said,written,done, thought about, anything not perfect or inspired? even every one of the prophets and apostles in biblical scripture has done and said wrong things and sinned or transgressed. not that B.Y sinned by making non inspired statements, but my point should be made? Brigham young was not Jesus christ, he was a human being.:P

Share this post


Link to post

I think this is referring to the doctrine of blood atonement, which is only in effect when there is no separation of church and state.

Share this post


Link to post
The Journal of Discourses is online. You're more than welcome to look up the context yourself if you're really concerned.

I think wes is looking for some commentary as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems pretty straight forward to me. I don't think there is a whole lot of subtext there.

Share this post


Link to post

Between the phrase "I would do it with clean hands" and "There is not a man or woman" is the following;

"But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged.

Every man and women has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone.

Again, suppose the parties are not caught in their iniquity, and it passes along unnoticed, shall I have compassion on them? Yes, I will have compassion on them, for transgressions of the nature already named, or for those of any other description. If the Lord so order it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live; and I say let them live and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do".

Plus it was said during the Mormon Reformation so do your studying of that period to get the context. I have more doubt to the legitimacy of the quotation that you provided then I do for Mormonism.

Share this post


Link to post

I must say that after reading the responses to this thread (including the links to other threads regarding this issue) my skepticism has only deepened.

Share this post


Link to post
I do not have that 3rd volume, so i cannot read for myself, but i can say that if it was in the book, whats the real problem? journal of discourses is not morman docrtrine nor is it a directive in any manner for members to follow; it is just what it says. it is a discourse. I;E; ramblings. thoughts,ideas, e.t.c... of a non inspired nature. It is not nor was it ever intended to be representative of this church. What beleife are yu of? maybe catholic,methodist,jehovah witness, born again,e,v? Whichever beleife yu are of, has not your leader{s} ever said,written,done, thought about, anything not perfect or inspired? even every one of the prophets and apostles in biblical scripture has done and said wrong things and sinned or transgressed. not that B.Y sinned by making non inspired statements, but my point should be made? Brigham young was not Jesus christ, he was a human being.:P

Every volume of the Journal of Discourses can be read online at www.journalofdiscourses.org. This website is useful not only for what can be learned from the texts directly, but also to check various claims for context and accuracy. For instance, readers can find out whether Brigham Young taught blood atonement as a doctrine or as a theory by reading his own words on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
I must say that after reading the responses to this thread (including the links to other threads regarding this issue) my skepticism has only deepened.

So because you havent looked up the context yet, you are more skeptical because people suggest you look it up?

Share this post


Link to post
I must say that after reading the responses to this thread (including the links to other threads regarding this issue) my skepticism has only deepened.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post

I hope you are skeptical of the completeness of the quotation. I just finished reading the late Paul H. Peterson's PH.D. Thesis on the Mormon Reformation which provides the context.

Share this post


Link to post
I am curious as to the context in which this statement was made because it gives me reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of Mormonism.

You see.... Statements like this are exactly what makes the difference between an anti-mormon and someone who's just interested in perspective.

Further, you ever heard of the "drive by media"....? That's anti-mormomism also..... They take a few statements from history that seem (which is often the case) or are negative, and try to paint an entire religion by it, especially when it's done by Christians because much worse has been said and done in their history (and still by anti's today), yet such is given a pass.

The falibility of man NOR out of context quoting does not a false faith make.

Let me make something else clear..... Anti-mormon out of context quoting has if I'm remembering basically four types.

1. Is where the quote is edited, and/or the surrounding text is missing or is ignored which clarify's what is actually being said, which IS NOT what is being claimed by the anti-mormon.

2. The quote is out of context with respect to LDS doctrine. LDS doctrine and other scriptures are not considered when viewing a statement, and so a false impression is made by the anti.

3. The anti simply outright lies on purpose.

4. The anti is simply plain dunce.... and no matter how you demonstrate the correct LDS view and the historical, Biblical context etc. they don't care and just want to believe what they want and believe mormons are liars, believe in a false religion, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Why?

I have found the responses uncompelling. There is no context in which Brigham's statement can be justified. He both endorses murder and admits he himself would do it under certain circumstances. His words are vengeful, un-Christlike, and just plain scary. I find it hard to believe that a prophet of God who claims to be representing the true gospel of Christ would ever make such statements.

Share this post


Link to post
You see.... Statements like this are exactly what makes the difference between an anti-mormon and someone who's just interested in perspective.

Further, you ever heard of the "drive by media"....? That's anti-mormomism also..... They take a few statements from history that seem (which is often the case) or are negative, and try to paint an entire religion by it, especially when it's done by Christians because much worse has been said and done in their history (and still by anti's today), yet such is given a pass.

The falibility of man NOR out of context quoting does not a false faith make.

Let me make something else clear..... Anti-mormon out of context quoting has if I'm remembering basically four types.

1. Is where the quote is edited, and/or the surrounding text is missing or is ignored which clarify's what is actually being said, which IS NOT what is being claimed by the anti-mormon.

2. The quote is out of context with respect to LDS doctrine. LDS doctrine and other scriptures are not considered when viewing a statement, and so a false impression is made by the anti.

3. The anti simply outright lies on purpose.

4. The anti is simply plain dunce.... and no matter how you demonstrate the correct LDS view and the historical, Biblical context etc. they don't care and just want to believe what they want and believe mormons are liars, believe in a false religion, etc.

In the case of the javelin, what context do you think the antis are overlooking? There is no sense in accusing people of context-ripping unless you say what that context is. Otherwise, it is like convicting people without evidence.

What Brigham Young and both of his counselors in the First Presidency said is that some sins are too grave for Christ's blood to atone for, and so certain sinners must willingly have their own blood offered in sacrifice by the elders of the Church rather than rely on Christ's blood which did not operate in their case. This practice was not enforced by Young, but referred to the state of affairs in a future kingdom that he expected. This doctrine has never been repudiated by the LDS Church, and modern doctrinal statements about the uniqueness of Christ's atonement always leave room for the possibility of blood atonement by saying Christ's sinlessness made it possible for him to die for the "sins of others" rather than just "sins."

Is this a misrepresentation? If so, can you provide any evidence to the contrary? If you did, it would be a nice improvement on just hurling accusations. If you wish, I can provide documentation in context for every sentence and clause in the above paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
I have found the responses uncompelling. There is no context in which Brigham's statement can be justified. He both endorses murder and admits he himself would do it under certain circumstances. His words are vengeful, un-Christlike, and just plain scary. I find it hard to believe that a prophet of God who claims to be representing the true gospel of Christ would ever make such statements.

Look at the date of the talk, It was what 1856? Look into the time he said it. Someone once said "A text without context is a pretext". You do realize that Pres. Young never killed anyone and there were only two murders in Deseret in the 1850's and they both happened in 1851 as per Peterson 1981.

Share this post


Link to post
Look at the date of the talk, It was what 1856? Look into the time he said it. Someone once said "A text without context is a pretext". You do realize that Pres. Young never killed anyone and there were only two murders in Deseret in the 1850's and they both happened in 1851 as per Peterson 1981.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre took place in 1857.

Share this post


Link to post

Brigham Young has an alibi, he was not there at the MMM. If you can place him there shooting people, please show us the proof.

Share this post


Link to post
What Brigham Young and both of his counselors in the First Presidency said is that some sins are too grave for Christ's blood to atone for, and so certain sinners must willingly have their own blood offered in sacrifice by the elders of the Church rather than rely on Christ's blood which did not operate in their case

And I would say there is truth in BY's statement. However, I would not say that there aren't any specific sins that the blood of Christ doesn't Atone for except for the scriptural "unpardonable sin". The blood of Christ WILL Atone for adultery and murder, even in combination with each other. What the blood of Christ does not Atone for besides the unpardonable sin are sins that are not repented of.....

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

D&C 19:17

In other words....

And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

Alma 11:37

Share this post


Link to post
Brigham Young has an alibi, he was not there at the MMM. If you can place him there shooting people, please show us the proof.

My point was that there were more than 2 murders in 1850's Utah as you claimed. Considering the bloody nature of Young's statement it is not surprising something like the MMM took place whether he was present or not.

Share this post


Link to post
I have found the responses uncompelling. There is no context in which Brigham's statement can be justified. He both endorses murder and admits he himself would do it under certain circumstances. His words are vengeful, un-Christlike, and just plain scary. I find it hard to believe that a prophet of God who claims to be representing the true gospel of Christ would ever make such statements.
Brigham Young was taking a Biblical account, and using it to make a point(Numbers 25:7-13 or so).

We believe that sins that are unrepented of will not be covered by the atonement, and we will have to pay the price for them. In other words, the blood of Christ, which was used in the atonement will not cover unrepented sins.

The emphasis of his talk was to not take the covenants made with the Lord lightly.

Brigham Young never advocated killing anyone, so what exactly is it that troubles you?

Share this post


Link to post
My point was that there were more than 2 murders in 1850's Utah. Considering the bloody nature of Young's statement it is not surprising something like the MMM took place whether he was present or not.

So now we are switching to the MMM and Pres. Young's role in it, allright then read the new book on MMM published by OUP. I question the connection between the talk given in March 1856 in SLC and the MMM on Sept. 1857

Share this post


Link to post
I must say that after reading the responses to this thread (including the links to other threads regarding this issue) my skepticism has only deepened.

I'm shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...