Bloody Brigham

[USU78]

My name isn't Alice; and I don't know what "the hooka" is, but apparently you're familiar with it.

Who Are You?

[selek]

Put-down name-calling is typically an early indicator of desperation. It's OK, I understand.

Ayep. And you still haven't provided the remainder of BY's sermon.

"Unsubstantiated allegations"? Fascinating. You haven't answered Wilford Woodruff's journal entry. . .haven't answered eyewitness accounts of what BY said when he visited the MMM site. . .haven't answered what is recorded in the Journal of Discourses. Are you prepared to denigrate President Woodruff's account? How about the Journal of Discourses? The best you have managed to this point is to accuse me of "predigest[ed] propaganda," sans any particulars.

Why should I reinvent the wheel? USU has done a masterful job of exposing your falsity and pretentiousness already.

So, it's your position that Wilford Woodruff engaged in "rumor mongering" in his journal--right? It's also your position that BY's speeches/writings as recorded in the Journal of Discourses constituted "rumor mongering"--right? Really? How astonishing coming from one such as you.

I don't have any issues with the words or works of Presidents Woodruff or Young- only with your mischaracterization of them.

My name isn't Alice; and I don't know what "the hooka" is, but apparently you're familiar with it.

Don't know what a hooka is.

Fair enough.

To continue the metaphor, though, you've clearly been nibbling on the wrong side of the mushroom too long.

Curiouser and curiouser.....

Now.....are you going to meet the challenge and provide the full context of the "javelin" talk, or will you continue to shriek and tear at your hair and hope no one notices that you can't or won't put facts where your mouth is?

[selek]

Thus far, Paulpatter seems to be living up to the old naval dictum:

"When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

I wonder if he'll find the next sixty words, or if he'll argue that they were on the missing eight minutes of tape from the Nixon White House...

[paulpatter]

Ayep. And you still haven't provided the remainder of BY's sermon.

You think that will get you out of the bind you're in, huh?

: Why should I reinvent the wheel?

Gosh, I had assumed you believed in eternal progression.

: USU has done a masterful job of exposing your falsity and pretentiousness already.

Presumably that includes calling me a "maroon," bless his heart.

: I don't have any issues with the words or works of Presidents Woodruff or Young- only with your mischaracterization of them.

The words speak for themselves; you're in denial.

. . .

: To continue the metaphor, though, you've clearly been nibbling on the wrong side of the mushroom too long.

Is there a prescribed time one should nibble "on the wrong side of the mushroom" (the inclusion of "too long" in your sentence allows for that possibility).

: Now.....are you going to meet the challenge and provide the full context of the "javelin" talk, or will you continue to shriek and tear at your hair and hope no one notices that you can't or won't put facts where your mouth is?

Let's see, didn't you accuse me of "mischaracterization" a few lines above? By George, I think you did.

[USU78]

I guess we've had enough fun. Since paulpatter's having trouble providing the requested context, I will do so. Here is the page of the JoD, in toto:

[p. 247] A few of the men and women who go into the house of the Lord, and receive their endowments, and in the most sacred manner make covenants before the Almighty, go and violate those covenants. Do I have compassion on them? Yes, I do have mercy on them, for there is something in their organization which they do not understand; and there are but few in this congregation who do understand it.

You say, "That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God." 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. 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 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.

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; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants. To what degree? Will they have to go to hell? They are in hell enough now. I do not wish them in a greater hell, when their consciences condemn them all the time. Let compassion reign in our bosoms. Try to comprehend how weak we are, how we are organized, how the spirit and the flesh are continually at war.

And here is the FAIR response to this bit of UTLM mischief, to which our friend paulpatter subscribes.

[Mudcat]

Maybe I am missing something here... but

Seems to me that BY said something to the effect that it was okay for his brother to spear his wife if he caught her in bed with another man. Or maybe he was saying that God would be cool with him spearing his wife regardless of if he did do it or not.

I mean you can put all the context you want to into that statement... but its pretty dang rough and tumble IMO.

[Anijen]

You think that will get you out of the bind you're in, huh?

Gosh, I had assumed you believed in eternal progression.

Presumably that includes calling me a "maroon," bless his heart.

The words speak for themselves; you're in denial.

. . .

Is there a prescribed time one should nibble "on the wrong side of the mushroom" (the inclusion of "too long" in your sentence allows for that possibility).

Let's see, didn't you accuse me of "mischaracterization" a few lines above? By George, I think you did.

Drivel you are proving USU78 and Seleks point. Put up or shutup.

[Skylla]

Please report it when someone refuses to provide a reference in its full context. Paul: Review the board guidelines. We expect you to provide it when a reference is called for. Partial quotes taken out of context are not acceptable.

Skylla

[USU78]

Maybe I am missing something here... but

Seems to me that BY said something to the effect that it was okay for his brother to spear his wife if he caught her in bed with another man. Or maybe he was saying that God would be cool with him spearing his wife regardless of if he did do it or not.

I mean you can put all the context you want to into that statement... but its pretty dang rough and tumble IMO.

Mudcat, how can you say that in light of this: "Every man and women has got to have clean hands and pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone."?

Get it right, kiddo.

[Anijen]

Maybe I am missing something here... but

Seems to me that BY said something to the effect that it was okay for his brother to spear his wife if he caught her in bed with another man. Or maybe he was saying that God would be cool with him spearing his wife regardless of if he did do it or not.

I mean you can put all the context you want to into that statement... but its pretty dang rough and tumble IMO.

"Removed from its context, this quote can be quite shocking to the modern reader, as it seems to condone violence in response to sin and the impossibility of repentance and forgiveness through Christ's atonement.While Brigham's example seems to us extreme, we need to keep in mind the spirit of his time. He was speaking forcefully to a group of spiritually apathetic Saints to remind them of the seriousness of the covenants they had made. He took an Old Testament scenario--one in which an Israelite had killed another sexually immoral Israelite--and applied it to his own time and people.

Before our critics go after Brigham Young for his views on blood atonement, they need to deal with comparable passages in their own Bible." Mike Parker

I agree Mudcat its reading is shocking and that is one reason it is a popular quote of many anti's. IMO I would think in this day and time BY would not use such harsh words. We should not read such quotes with presentism but try to understand the time in which was said.

The church does not condone this type of behavior now or then.

[Zakuska]

Yep, and it was a very violent time, in a totally untamed wilderness. Not sure why it's so damning and worthy of such defensive efforts.

I simply stated, originally, that the "Bloody BY" title seemed to me to be more from the Rockwell/blood atonement stories than the mmm. I made no judgment, simply noted in what context I'd ever heard the reference.

Intresting that the quote in the OP came a few sentences after something about the MMM.

JD 10:108 - p.109, Brigham Young, March 8, 1863

In 1857 it is estimated that eleven thousand troops were ordered here; some seven thousand stared for this place, with several thousand hangers on. They came into this Territory when a company of emigrants were traveling on the south route to California. Nearly all of that company were destroyed by the Indians. That unfortunate affair has been laid to the charge of the whites. A certain judge that was then in this Territory wanted the whole army to accompany him to Iron county to try the whites for the murder of that company of emigrants. I told Governor Cumming that if he would take an unprejudiced judge into the district where that horrid affair occurred, I would pledge myself that every man in the regions round about should be forthcoming when called for, to be condemned or acquitted as an impartial, unprejudiced judge and jury should decide; and I pledged him that the court should be protected from any violence or hindrance in the prosecution of the laws; and if any were guilty of the blood of those who suffered in the Mountain Meadow massacre, let them suffer the penalty of the law; but to this day they have not touched the matter, for fear the Mormons would be acquitted from the charge of having any hand in it, and our enemies would thus be deprived of a favorite topic to talk about, when urging hostility against us. "The Mountain Meadow massacre! Only think of the Mountain Meadow massacre!!" is their cry from one end of the land to the other.

[rockslider]

"Removed from its context, this quote can be quite shocking to the modern reader, as it seems to condone violence in response to sin and the impossibility of repentance and forgiveness through Christ's atonement.While Brigham's example seems to us extreme, we need to keep in mind the spirit of his time. He was speaking forcefully to a group of spiritually apathetic Saints to remind them of the seriousness of the covenants they had made. He took an Old Testament scenario--one in which an Israelite had killed another sexually immoral Israelite--and applied it to his own time and people.

Before our critics go after Brigham Young for his views on blood atonement, they need to deal with comparable passages in their own Bible." Mike Parker

I agree Mudcat its reading is shocking and that is one reason it is a popular quote of many anti's. IMO I would think in this day and time BY would not use such harsh words. We should not read such quotes with presentism but try to understand the time in which was said.

The church does not condone this type of behavior now or then.

I'm confused, I've never heard of the concept of blood atonement having anything to do with sexual sin.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat, how can you say that in light of this: "Every man and women has got to have clean hands and pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone."?

Get it right, kiddo.

Given your context USU, you could assume that either..

1. that people who have "clean hands and pure heart, to execute judgment" have a right/duty to execute something on this order. I mean that, taking what you have put into context with this, there are some people who can execute people for adultery and God is okay with that.

or

2. It was a shock value statement and no such people actually exist.. maybe this is like a "cast the first stone" statement as Christ made. However the tenor of it is certainly different in the reading.

If its 1, well I disagree. Option 2 seems a bit far fetched, but I am certainly more receptive to that notion. Perhaps there are other permutations.

Do you think BY was saying there are certain people who are justified in killing their spouses? If not, what do you think he really meant by it?

[Zakuska]

"Removed from its context, this quote can be quite shocking to the modern reader, as it seems to condone violence in response to sin and the impossibility of repentance and forgiveness through Christ's atonement.While Brigham's example seems to us extreme, we need to keep in mind the spirit of his time. He was speaking forcefully to a group of spiritually apathetic Saints to remind them of the seriousness of the covenants they had made. He took an Old Testament scenario--one in which an Israelite had killed another sexually immoral Israelite--and applied it to his own time and people.

Before our critics go after Brigham Young for his views on blood atonement, they need to deal with comparable passages in their own Bible." Mike Parker

I agree Mudcat its reading is shocking and that is one reason it is a popular quote of many anti's. IMO I would think in this day and time BY would not use such harsh words. We should not read such quotes with presentism but try to understand the time in which was said.

The church does not condone this type of behavior now or then.

While it is true that the LDS church "does not condone this type of behavior now or then" one has to wonder when the Israelite that did actually DO this was praised by God for it and his name was imortalized in a Hymn.

Num 25

6

[Anijen]

I'm confused, I've never heard of the concept of blood atonement having anything to do with sexual sin.

Try reading the Bible particularly Numbers chapter 25.

Edited to add; Zakuska posted while I did and he beat me to the punch.

[Bob Crockett]

"Unsubstantiated allegations"? Fascinating.

I, too, am a lifelong member and have served in positions like yours. However, I have also published in the area of violence in Brigham Young's day.

What would you say is the single best piece of evidence that Brigham Young authorized a specific act of blood-spilling during his administration? Authorizing the killing of the army's cattle doesn't count.

Bob

[Zakuska]

Given your context USU, you could assume that either..

1. that people who have "clean hands and pure heart, to execute judgment" have a right/duty to execute something on this order. I mean that, taking what you have put into context with this, there are some people who can execute people for adultery and God is okay with that.

or

2. It was a shock value statement and no such people actually exist.. maybe this is like a "cast the first stone" statement as Christ made. However the tenor of it is certainly different in the reading.

If its 1, well I disagree. Option 2 seems a bit far fetched, but I am certainly more receptive to that notion. Perhaps there are other permutations.

Do you think BY was saying there are certain people who are justified in killing their spouses? If not, what do you think he really meant by it?

Name one person who has a "pure heart and clean hands"?

Rom. 3: 10

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

That was BY's whole point. Since none of us are, no one is justified in such behavior.

Even Paul used similar rhetoric in his preaching to the Hebrews... about covenant breakers...

Heb 10

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses

[Anijen]

Mudcat a careful reading of Brigham Youngs sermon you will see he means a time in the near future that it will be for those who have more knowledge of that part of covenant breaking. Read this. it will help show exactly what BY meant.

[USU78]

Given your context USU, you could assume that either..

1. that people who have "clean hands and pure heart, to execute judgment" have a right/duty to execute something on this order. I mean that, taking what you have put into context with this, there are some people who can execute people for adultery and God is okay with that.

or

2. It was a shock value statement and no such people actually exist.. maybe this is like a "cast the first stone" statement as Christ made. However the tenor of it is certainly different in the reading.

If its 1, well I disagree. Option 2 seems a bit far fetched, but I am certainly more receptive to that notion. Perhaps there are other permutations.

Do you think BY was saying there are certain people who are justified in killing their spouses? If not, what do you think he really meant by it?

The page starts with a "I have compassion for covenantbreakers." Then in the middle, there's the sentence I quoted about leaving judgment to the "pure in heart." At the end he calls for leaving those alone who weren't caught in the act. And, yes, it is very much a "cast the first stone" kind of thing. BY is answering those who call for the death penalty for those who break their covenants. He says, "Leave it to the righteous." Who is that? He won't even claim this right himself. What lesson is taught by this? Ultimately it's a leave judgment up to G-d sermon.

Remember how these things were captured and reported. A private group took shorthand notes of conference addresses, then typed up transcripts for sale in Britain. Things were not tightly organized in those days. Talks went on for hours sometimes and weren't highly organized. We need to be careful of the minutiae, though the "gist" is pretty well captured, and the "gist" here is: "Don't go casting the stone, folks. Leave judgment up to G-d, even if you are that wronged husband."

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

You don't bring much argumentive weight to bear here, USU, writing in vague generalities as you have. Perhaps you can be a tad more specific; i.e., how did I "mis-cite" BYU's words?

Historic Context:

At that time there was a law in the Territorial legal code that provided the death penalty for adultery, so President Young's advice was not outside of the civil law in the punishment he cited. The question is, was it outside of the law, for a private citizen to act as judge, jury and executioner in Utah Territory in 1856? According to the civil law, such an act was murder -- but, according to Brigham Young (and according to the biblical Book of Numbers) such an act, on the part of a private citizen, "would be justified." By his saying that, I take it to mean that the private citizen, in such case, would not have been charged with murder. The 1850s situation in Utah, "in which the commander-in-chief of the troops was also the head of a church," or acting as a prophet, dispensing a "higher law" than what was in the legal code.

Bible Context:

Brigham Young spoke boldly and did not mince words. He would often paraphrase scripture to make a point. Those who study him and those who knew him, understand his method of communicating with bold scriptural symbolism. Here is the reference for his quote regarding "puting a javelin through both of them":

Numbers 25

1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

3 And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor.

6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

10 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

What happened was the Lord blesses a man for putting a javelin through a man and a woman for immorality, and when Brigham Young uses that same story to teach a principle about morality. If you are content to forsake contexts, and believe the face value of one liner quotes by critics of the church, so be it. But context is important in understanding what was said. Brigham didn't have a javelin; Brigham never executed anyone for adultery; Brigham never told anyone to execute anyone for adultery; and since English-speakers of normal intelligence can tell the difference between a hypothetical discussion that was clearly take from the Bible and that it was once lawful to kill adulterers; what Brigham said was not outrageous.

Full Context:

However Brigham continues:

"and I SAY LET THEM LIVE and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do."

"Will they have to go to hell? They are in hell enough now. I do not wish them in a greater hell, when their consciences condemn them all the time. Let compassion reign in our bosoms. Try to comprehend how weak we are, how we are organized, how the spirit and the flesh are continually at war."

As we said, he not the blood thirsty tyrant you just tied to making him out to be.

[rockslider]

So what of tales of the enactment of blood atonement associated with calling and election sure. I've never heard so much talk about the javlin and adultry seems the stories abound over calling and election.

[Deborah]

So what of tales of the enactment of blood atonement associated with calling and election sure. I've never heard so much talk about the javlin and adultry seems the stories abound over calling and election.

Be specific, please. It is my understanding in cases where the calling and election is sure that the Lord is in charge of the consequences.

[oats]

If anyone has questions about the context read the entire talk: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/jofdvol3p243_249brighambloodatonement.htm

Essentially he says that the people as a whole are far too ignorant to apply any death penalty for violations of the law, and that it will be a long time before the people possess sufficient understanding for it to be useful.

Until then we need to seek compassion, charity and understanding of one another's weaknesses of the flesh.

From what is at times said here, it might be inferred that every one who did not walk to the line was at once going to be destroyed, but who has been hurt? Who is about to be killed? Who is about to be taken out of the way? When this people have lived long enough upon the earth, to have the principles of life and salvation disseminated among them, and to have their children taught in those principles, so that they fully know the principles of eternal salvation, then let us or our children turn away from the commandments of God, as some do now, and I could tell you what will be done with them.

The prelude to the portion of the talk in question:

I will now speak upon another subject; one which I have touched upon many times, but which, to this day, is but little understood. I allude to the organization of the spirit and the body, the distinction between the two, and their operations. This subject is not well understood, and generally not much reflected upon, but is one which the Saints have got to learn, if they ever learn the real organization of man. Then they will know and understand the peculiarities of our present organization, and how liable mankind are to submit to its weaknesses, and to the influences of the powers that rule over them.

Were you in possession of this knowledge, you would be more compassionate. As severely as I sometimes talk to you, my soul is full of compassion. It has ever been my study to understand myself, for by so doing I can understand my neighbors.

Given our difficulties with one or two selected paragraphs I think it is still safe to say that, 'to this day it is but little understood'.

[rockslider]

Be specific, please. It is my understanding in cases where the calling and election is sure that the Lord is in charge of the consequences.

I assumed the various "stories" were basically common knowledge. To what level of accuracy the "stories" are I could not say.

I'm sure many would call the material here anti-mormon ... but it does cover a very good spectrum of why BY might carry the OP's title and seems reasonably objective to me.

http://en.wikipedia....Blood_atonement

edit:

Upon review, my noting of calling and election was a bit generous to the old, would be enforcers/volunteers. I was thinking unpardonable sins. Apparently, since I've been to the Temple and taken out my endowments and then apostatized, I would have been a candidate for blood atonement.

[USU78]

Upon review, my noting of calling and election was a bit generous to the old, would be enforcers/volunteers. I was thinking unpardonable sins. Apparently, since I've been to the Temple and taken out my endowments and then apostatized, I would have been a candidate for blood atonement.

First off, there's only one unpardonable sin, and, as much as we have confidence in you, rs, you're not a candidate.

Second, remember that one undertakes to give up one's own life, if necessary, rather than violate one's covenants with G-d.

That is the most important thing to remember when discussing the so-called "blood atonement" doctrine as taught by BY.

Second most important thing is that there are no instances of it ever being invoked in the real world, least of all against XIXth Century Gentiles, where those stories that get passed around are set.

Fact is, there's not a lick of objective evidence that supports there was ever anything like what the antis pass around.

This makes what they pass around a libel.

The Blood Atonement Libel.

And it's pretty nauseating that grown men and women buy into it.