Brigham Young?

[Alan]

This question has been on my mind for some time.

Not desiring to downplay Brother Brigham's significant achievements, especially regarding the exodus from Nauvoo and the settlement in the Salt Lake Valley and beyond; are BY's teachings devalued because of his doctrinal errors and practices?

 

For example:

 

1. Adam-God doctrine

2. Priesthood ban

3. Blood atonement

4. Plural marriage

5. Co-operative economics

 

There may be more, but it seems to me that the church has dropped all of these and, with some of them, gone out of it's way to repudiate them.

Therefore, how reliable are the rest of his teachings?

I know that some will say that he was human and not perfect; that is a given. But these things are major doctrines and policies which were at the core of the church in his day. They were not incidental, nor were they presented as personal opinions or speculations.

 

So is Brigham Young's tenure as president of the church devalued by this, and if so to what extent?

[thesometimesaint]

This question has been on my mind for some time.

Not desiring to downplay Brother Brigham's significant achievements, especially regarding the exodus from Nauvoo and the settlement in the Salt Lake Valley and beyond; are BY's teachings devalued because of his doctrinal errors and practices?

 

For example:

 

1. Adam-God doctrine

2. Priesthood ban

3. Blood atonement

4. Plural marriage

5. Co-operative economics

 

There may be more, but it seems to me that the church has dropped all of these and, with some of them, gone out of it's way to repudiate them.

Therefore, how reliable are the rest of his teachings?

I know that some will say that he was human and not perfect; that is a given. But these things are major doctrines and policies which were at the core of the church in his day. They were not incidental, nor were they presented as personal opinions or speculations.

 

So is Brigham Young's tenure as president of the church devalued by this, and if so to what extent?

 

1. Lots depends on how you read the A-G theory. Adam is a Name Title.

2. We still have Priesthood bans. Women can't hold the Priesthood.

3. We still have Blood Atonement. The only one that was necessary was the one that occurred some 2000 years ago.

4. Plural Marriage is still a doctrine of the Church, only its mortal practice is at this time is prohibited.

5. That unfortunately is the one area we need a lot of work on.

[Buzzard]

This question has been on my mind for some time.

Not desiring to downplay Brother Brigham's significant achievements, especially regarding the exodus from Nauvoo and the settlement in the Salt Lake Valley and beyond; are BY's teachings devalued because of his doctrinal errors and practices?

 

For example:

 

1. Adam-God doctrine

2. Priesthood ban

3. Blood atonement

4. Plural marriage

5. Co-operative economics

 

There may be more, but it seems to me that the church has dropped all of these and, with some of them, gone out of it's way to repudiate them.

Therefore, how reliable are the rest of his teachings?

I know that some will say that he was human and not perfect; that is a given. But these things are major doctrines and policies which were at the core of the church in his day. They were not incidental, nor were they presented as personal opinions or speculations.

 

So is Brigham Young's tenure as president of the church devalued by this, and if so to what extent?

I suspect that Brother Brigham were here today, that what he said and especially  how he said it would be different, and he would be no less a prophet of God. Looking back on history through today's lens is a major mistake a lot of us make. For a more secular example, do we "devalue" George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they had slaves? 

I generally agree with TSS, the one I would further elucidate on would be #5. To this day, the church has pilot programs and tries things out. Sometimes they work and are adopted churchwide (18 year old missionaries/Facebook for same), sometimes they don't and are dropped (I know a stake that at SLC's direction, had 40 minutes shaved off it's three hour block. After a year, they went back to three hours). The Iron mission, the Cotton mission to St. George, the various United Orders, and many many more economic experiments were secular failures, but so what? The saints and Brigham were trying to figure out how to live isolated in the Intermountain  West. God lets us figure this kind of stuff out. If you think that the prophet has a weekly PPI with Jesus and receives his marching orders for the next few days, you would be...ahem...mistaken. 

Edited February 3, 2014 by Buzzard

[K-2]

This question has been on my mind for some time.

Not desiring to downplay Brother Brigham's significant achievements, especially regarding the exodus from Nauvoo and the settlement in the Salt Lake Valley and beyond; are BY's teachings devalued because of his doctrinal errors and practices?

 

For example:

 

1. Adam-God doctrine

2. Priesthood ban

3. Blood atonement

4. Plural marriage

5. Co-operative economics

 

There may be more, but it seems to me that the church has dropped all of these and, with some of them, gone out of it's way to repudiate them.

Therefore, how reliable are the rest of his teachings?

I know that some will say that he was human and not perfect; that is a given. But these things are major doctrines and policies which were at the core of the church in his day. They were not incidental, nor were they presented as personal opinions or speculations.

 

So is Brigham Young's tenure as president of the church devalued by this, and if so to what extent?

 

 

1. Adam-God doctrine:

    

When the Saints first heard this doctrine [Adam-God] advanced it looked strange and unnatural to them; it was strong meat and required a little time before it could be digested; but this was owing to the narrow, contracted ideas which had been handed down from generation to generation by our forefathers. We were like babes and had always been fed upon milk; but, as Jesus said, we have to be taught "here a little and there a little." When I was able to comprehend it, it appeared quite consistent. There is something in this doctrine that is very home like, grand and beautiful to reflect upon, and it is very simple and comprehensive.  It teaches us that we are all the children of the same parent, whose love was so great that He gave His beloved Son, our Elder Brother, Jesus Christ, to redeem us from the fall... It teaches us that our Father was once mortal, and that if we remain faithful we will finally become as He is immortal even if we must first pay the penalty for the transgression of our first parents...

Brigham Young did not happen to be the author of this doctrine, and to prove the truth of my assertion, I will produce some of the Prophet's teachings, given May 16, 1841. These were written, together with other things, by his clerk, William Clayton, as they were spoken, and as I had the privilege of reading them when quite a young woman, I took the liberty of copying them. The copy I have retained, and, this is what the Prophet said upon this subject, commencing with the Priesthood:

     The Priesthood was first given to Adam -- he obtained the

     First Presidency and held the keys of it from generation to

     generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the

     world was formed... He had dominion given him over every

     living creature; he is Michael, the Archangel spoken of in

     the Scriptures. Then Noah who is Gabriel -- he stands next

     in authority to Adam in the Priesthood. He was called of

     God to this office, and was the father of all living in his

     day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys

     first on earth and then in heaven. The Priesthood is an

     everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity,

     and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of

     years. When the keys have to be brought from heaven -- it

     is by Adam's authority.

     Daniel, in the seventh chapter of his book, speaks of the

     Ancient of Days -- he means the oldest man, our Father

     Adam, Michael. He will call his children together and hold

     a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the

     Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family and

     presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had

     the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This

     may take place before some of us leave this stage of

     action. The Son of Man stands before him and there is given

     him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to

     Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys

     to the universe, but retains his standing as the head of

     the human family.

     The fulness of times has come of which Daniel writes: I

     beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of

     Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair

     of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the

     fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream

     issued and came forth from before him; thousand thousands

     ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand

     stood before him; the judgement was set, and the books were

     opened.

     I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son

     of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the

     Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him. And

     there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,

     that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him:

     His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not

     pass away, and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed." --

     Daniel 7:10, 13, 14

     Now if he [Joseph Smith III] feels that it is his duty to proclaim against this people and deny the doctrines which his father felt authorized of God to teach as revelation from on high, I shall only regret it for his own and his father's sake.

(Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Plural Marriage, pp. 31-37, September 20, 1882)

 

 

2. Priesthood ban

 

President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet [Joseph] taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood, nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain's offspring.

(22 August 1895, Minutes of Meeting of General Authorities, The Way to Perfection (1931), Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 110.)

 

3. Blood atonement

 

Joseph Smith in a Short speech sanctioned what had been Said by Rigdon though said he I don't want the brethren to act unlawfully but will tell them one thing, Judas was a traitor and instead of hanging himself was hung by Peter....

(Reed Peck Manuscript pp. 25-26)

 

4. Plural marriage

 

D&C 132:61

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

 

5. Co-operative economics

 

 

D&C 104:1

1 Verily I say unto you, my friends, I give unto you counsel, and a commandment, concerning all the properties which belong to the order which I commanded to be organized and established, to be a united order, and an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come—

 

"So is Brigham Young's tenure as president of the church devalued by this, and if so to what extent?"

No. Zero extent.

Edited February 3, 2014 by K-2

[David T]

My Faithful, active, historically informed LDS view on BY is explored in my review of John Turner's excellent biography on my blog here - here's some of my summary thoughts as posted there:

 

 

As I neared the end of the book, what I found most fascinating was not the details of the life of Brigham himself, but what our reactions to him and his life reveal about our deeply held views of God’s personality and character. Many of the attributes we may find naturally repugnant in Brigham Young’s doings are attributes and actions that have traditionally been ascribed to God for millennia, and are found in our scriptures.

 

God, as presented throughout the scriptural records, was understood and presented as being willing to deceive (1 Kings 22:23), condoning extrajudicial killing and massacres (Numbers 31:17–18) , being inconsistent in his sometimes subjugating (see nearly all laws in Leviticus treating women as property)/sometimes exalting positions on women (see praise of Deborah, Esther), being discriminatory by lineage, employing fiery and harsh rhetoric (see Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), etc. These were popular divine attributes part and parcel of admitting the Ultimate Sovereignty of God.

 

An encounter with an undiluted Brigham Young is a powerful reality check for our understanding and approach to the scriptural records of God.

 

Joseph Smith took the once-upon-a-time nature and views of Ancient Prophets and Living Scripture, and demanded that we confront them and wrestle with them as a present and practical reality. I see Brigham Young doing much of the same for traditional – and scriptural – expressions of the deeds and sayings of God. If confronted with the Old Testament’s Yahweh in our present reality, as he was literally presented in that record – in broad strokes, would we see him as a Loving Fatherly King, or a Deviant Tyrant? Would we respect him out of love, or out of the Fear of Retribution? Just as there were some who saw God through both lenses, it is fascinating that the same can be applied to Brother Brigham. The relationship between the Saints and Brigham was just as complicated as the relationship between ancient Israel and their God.

 

To me, Brigham fulfilled his role as revelator, not in telling us about God, but by revealing how we all truly do feel about the actual ancient, traditional, scriptural expression of God.

 

While Jesus was sent as a presentation and revelation of the God Who Is, I suggest that Brigham presented a contrasting revelation of the God who the religious worldactually claimed to love and worship and adore. While providing extraordinary, necessary, and perhaps miraculous temporal and practical services to the Church and its members, I find the strength in the broad strokes of Brigham’s spiritual ministry to be that he created a sharp contrast which made the ministry of Jesus shine even brighter. His life, most likely unknown to him, was a living parable. In a fascinating way, Brigham’s life and theology paved the way in later years for a strong and lasting reformation of the LDS relationship with and view of the attributes of God.

 

We can read the Old Testament and declare, authentically and rightfully,  “God did great and wonderful things,” note some inspiring tender moments, and still be incredibly disturbed at the implications of God’s nature based on his actions, leading it to be hard to love and have Faith in God as he is presented there. While I do believe in God, I believe that a progression of light and knowledge that has come into the world has revealed the inaccuracies, misunderstandings , and misrepresentations of key aspects of His personality and attributes as understood and expressed by the ancients.

 

I believe that Scriptures and Prophets are inconvenient by design. I believe what we learn from our interaction and confrontation with their lives and teachings is generally far more beneficial and conducive to growth and coming to know God than the correlated sum of their words and teachings alone.

 

The existence and daily lives of the first pair of true Modern Prophets – Joseph and Brigham – messily and inconveniently demand that we – Mormons as well as those who are not – confront and revisit our perceptions and paradigms of the Divine.

Edited February 3, 2014 by David T

[cinepro]

This question has been on my mind for some time.

Not desiring to downplay Brother Brigham's significant achievements, especially regarding the exodus from Nauvoo and the settlement in the Salt Lake Valley and beyond; are BY's teachings devalued because of his doctrinal errors and practices?

 

For example:

 

1. Adam-God doctrine

2. Priesthood ban

3. Blood atonement

4. Plural marriage

5. Co-operative economics

 

There may be more, but it seems to me that the church has dropped all of these and, with some of them, gone out of it's way to repudiate them.

Therefore, how reliable are the rest of his teachings?

I know that some will say that he was human and not perfect; that is a given. But these things are major doctrines and policies which were at the core of the church in his day. They were not incidental, nor were they presented as personal opinions or speculations.

 

So is Brigham Young's tenure as president of the church devalued by this, and if so to what extent?

 

The value that the current LDS Church gives to Brigham Young's teachings is best exemplified by the compilation published in 1997 and used as the official curriculum for the Priesthood and Relief Society classes for two years:

 

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young

 

The proper attitude seems to be to focus on what he said that coincides with current policies and doctrines, alter statements that he made to make them appear to do so (if possible), and disregard the rest.

[Freedom]

Brigham Young said a lot of thing, expressed a lot of opinions, and was also misquoted a lot. It is easy to take 3 or 4 opinions that seem a bit off the mark and ignore the hundreds that were right on the money. The church leaders have learned to be careful when expressing their opinions.

[JLHPROF]

I think that when all is said and done, we will find that Brigham was right on a lot more of these teachings that we like to admit.  Like any man he was prone to his own opinions and mistakes.  But he was a prophet, and until we KNOW complete truth we don't know what God revealed to him.

Plural Marriage and United Order (Co-operative economics) are still considered true doctrine but temporarily on hold as practices.

The other 3 - Adam/God, Blood Atonement, and the Priesthood Ban - well, they may be the most unpopular doctrines in mormon history, but we may be surprised what Brigham actually meant in the future or what he actually knew.

[changed]

Co-operative economics are fine so long as they are VOLUNTARILY entered into, ie, it isn't a governement entity enforing it with jail if you refuse to participate. 

[guerreiro9]

Co-operative economics are fine so long as they are VOLUNTARILY entered into, ie, it isn't a governement entity enforing it with jail if you refuse to participate.

I have seen people make this statement repeatedly, but have never heard an explanation for why they believe this. It just appears as though they are parroting a statement they have heard somewhere (usually for political reasons).

Incidentally I disagree, the failure comes from people's actions while in a cooperative environment and not from the actions that placed them in that environment.

As an example let's suppose that the prophet wishes to reinstitute the united order (on a limited basis). People are extended a call to enter into it. None of them would have voluntarily done so otherwise. Regardless of their views beforehand if they all buy in and work hard together it will be successful.

The same would be true if a secular government mandated its practice. Even if it wasn't voluntary if everyone buys in and does their part it will be successful.

Success and failure is not measured by the situations we are placed in, but by how we respond to those situations.

-guerreiro9

Edited February 4, 2014 by guerreiro9

[CV75]

So is Brigham Young's tenure as president of the church devalued by this, and if so to what extent?

He had his own edition of "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" a number of year ago, and I found it extremeley valuable.

[Alan]

1. Adam-God doctrine:

    

 

2. Priesthood ban

 

 

3. Blood atonement

 

 

4. Plural marriage

 

 

5. Co-operative economics

 

 

"So is Brigham Young's tenure as president of the church devalued by this, and if so to what extent?"

No. Zero extent.

[The Nehor]

He had his own edition of "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" a number of year ago, and I found it extremeley valuable.

I will be honest. I strongly dislike those books. They are so cut and paste it seems like most of what they said was lost. I wish they were more like the Teachings for our Times lessons and each lesson was a talk or sermon given by the Prophet rather then a bunch of quotes with way too many ellipses.

[The Nehor]

Oh, I also love Brigham Young.

[thatjimguy]

I suspect that Brother Brigham were here today, that what he said and especially  how he said it would be different, and he would be no less a prophet of God. Looking back on history through today's lens is a major mistake a lot of us make. For a more secular example, do we "devalue" George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they had slaves? 

 

The fact that they had slaves was not have anything to do with their job calling. These things here are directly related to President Young's revelations with God.

[Calm]

The fact that they had slaves was not have anything to do with their job calling. These things here are directly related to President Young's revelations with God.

Wasn't part of their job calling overseeing the welfare of the people of the nation and promoting it to the best of their ability? If so, wouldn't participating in slavery (and apparently believing it wrong iirc as demonstrated by freeing slaves in their wills, but not wanting to give up their way of life more than righting that wrong) be an example of failing in their job?

[thatjimguy]

Wasn't part of their job calling overseeing the welfare of the people of the nation and promoting it to the best of their ability? If so, wouldn't participating in slavery (and apparently believing it wrong iirc as demonstrated by freeing slaves in their wills, but not wanting to give up their way of life more than righting that wrong) be an example of failing in their job?

 

Even if it was, I think it's a far cry from being involved directly with God.

[thatjimguy]

I cant find it right now, but I read somewhere that Brigham Young was frustrated that he could not get the grand revelations that President Smith did. If that is more than more Mormon tall tales, could it be a source of some of this? President Young was trying to force revelations?

[JLHPROF]

 

As I have said before, Joseph did not practice plural marriage. The system that developed in Utah (which does not comply with Section 132) occured mainly after Brigham went public in 1852, and was largely his creation. It very nearly destroyed the church.

 

 

This is just completely historically wrong.  And I would CFR from any reliable historical source or actual historian.

Edited February 5, 2014 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

I have seen people make this statement repeatedly, but have never heard an explanation for why they believe this. It just appears as though they are parroting a statement they have heard somewhere (usually for political reasons).

Incidentally I disagree, the failure comes from people's actions while in a cooperative environment and not from the actions that placed them in that environment.

As an example let's suppose that the prophet wishes to reinstitute the united order (on a limited basis). People are extended a call to enter into it. None of them would have voluntarily done so otherwise. Regardless of their views beforehand if they all buy in and work hard together it will be successful.

The same would be true if a secular government mandated its practice. Even if it wasn't voluntary if everyone buys in and does their part it will be successful.

Success and failure is not measured by the situations we are placed in, but by how we respond to those situations.

-guerreiro9

Do not tell them that the Law of Moses had strong cooperative elements in it and it was not voluntary. If you say that the next thing you know the commies will take over and the US will be a Stalinist state within the year.

[KevinG]

Brigham Young would say "think for yourselves" about Brigham Young?.

 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way” (Discourses of Brigham Young,135).

[JLHPROF]

Brigham Young would say "think for yourselves" about Brigham Young?.

 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way” (Discourses of Brigham Young,135).

 

What's interesting is while our leaders still claim they desire this, the membership at large doesn't do this and there are teachings against this too:

 

He (Lucifer) wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking[.]”

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy….

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.  Improvement Era, June 1945

 

We can't have it both ways.  Do we trust our eternal destiny to our leaders who have done the thinking already or do we think for ourselves and inquire of God?  What if we get a different answer?  Do we assume it's wrong? 

[thatjimguy]

I think President Young's fears slowly came to fruition to a degree. The good news is, I do not think this is about Mormonism as much as it is about a society always trying to look good for appearences. A "dont rock the boat" attitude in small religious sociities (LDS or otherwise) is always a safe, social bet.

 

I am comforted by the scriptual story of Samuel the Lamanite (my personal hero) who said what needed to be said without worrying about the niceties of Nephite high society.

[Calm]

We can't have it both ways.

You don't have to:

 

 

When the ward teaching message was published, concerns were raised regarding how this statement would be interpreted. President George Albert Smith responded to a concern expressed by Dr. Raymond A. Cope of the First Unitarian Society:

 

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed. I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.(emphasis added)

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done Edited February 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[thatjimguy]

Calimorah, I don't see what the response in FAIR is getting at...

 

I understand that the quote used again the church was not all together and grabbed in parts from the whole talk

 

The quote used against us:

 

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy.... Lucifer ... wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking."... When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy

 

And the talk, with the words slung away in bold.

 

It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking." He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery. The following words of the Prophet Joseph Smith should be memorized by every Latter-day Saint and repeated often enough to insure their never being forgotten: I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156-157.) When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

 

 

      Now FAIR did state they should this to provide the entire context of it, I do not see it being used out of context. The quote and the paragraph given seem to me to say the same thing either way.   What am I missing from the full version that is a different thought from the quote?
 

Edited February 6, 2014 by thatjimguy