Animal Sacrifice Restored

[Mars]

This thread is hardly about animal sacrifice.

 

It's about trying to undermine the faith that Mormons have that God's authority has been restored.  If you can show that some absurd thing, advocated under the banner of that same Priesthood authority, is demonstrably false, you can be successful in getting a Latter-day Saint to pause and begin to doubt.

 

Critics often use one or more of the following to assert this case: Kinderhook Plates, Blood Atonement, Adam God, Animal Sacrifice, Interracial Marriage remarks, changing polygamous practices, Temple Endowment ritual changes, Book of Mormon edits, D&C edits, and did-you-know-<early church leader>-once-said/did/thought-THISHORRIBLETHING?!

 

They're all variations on the same theme.  Some cases are interesting and compelling to me and cause me to review them.  Others are not at all worth my time.  Speculation on whether or not animal sacrifice will be restored as part of a 100% total restoration and how exactly animal sacrifice would be carried out - be it symbolic or physical - were it actually to be restored is definitely not worth my time.

What's more is that Canadaguia has shown very little to me that he/she is interested in understanding one another through meaningful dialogue.  Like many of our critics, they want enough understanding to solidify a case against us, and they want to ignore any and all information that is helpful to our cause.  They're not interested in understanding Mormonism.  They're interested in discrediting it.  I'm not at the point in my life any more where I feel compelled to review Mormonism's merits to see if I'm being duped by a charlatan who wanted to take young women to bed in the 1800s.

[mfbukowski]

This thread is hardly about animal sacrifice.

 

It's about trying to undermine the faith that Mormons have that God's authority has been restored.  If you can show that some absurd thing, advocated under the banner of that same Priesthood authority, is demonstrably false, you can be successful in getting a Latter-day Saint to pause and begin to doubt.

 

Critics often use one or more of the following to assert this case: Kinderhook Plates, Blood Atonement, Adam God, Animal Sacrifice, Interracial Marriage remarks, changing polygamous practices, Temple Endowment ritual changes, Book of Mormon edits, D&C edits, and did-you-know-<early church leader>-once-said/did/thought-THISHORRIBLETHING?!

 

They're all variations on the same theme.  Some cases are interesting and compelling to me and cause me to review them.  Others are not at all worth my time.  Speculation on whether or not animal sacrifice will be restored as part of a 100% total restoration and how exactly animal sacrifice would be carried out - be it symbolic or physical - were it actually to be restored is definitely not worth my time.

What's more is that Canadaguia has shown very little to me that he/she is interested in understanding one another through meaningful dialogue.  Like many of our critics, they want enough understanding to solidify a case against us, and they want to ignore any and all information that is helpful to our cause.  They're not interested in understanding Mormonism.  They're interested in discrediting it.  I'm not at the point in my life any more where I feel compelled to review Mormonism's merits to see if I'm being duped by a charlatan who wanted to take young women to bed in the 1800s.

IOU a few random rep points for that one.

[Mars]

Yay! I love having my ego quantified!

[mfbukowski]

You have to admit that this teaching is taught in a modern official LDS manual.  If it was false like you say why on earth would it be included by the LDS church in one of its manuals?

This has been answered a hundred times, and here I am. like a fool. actually responding to you again

 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

[mfbukowski]

Yay! I love having my ego quantified!

Well I only said a "few", you know.  

[Canadaigua]

Canadaigua

You have to admit that this teaching is taught in a modern official LDS manual.  If it was false like you say why on earth would it be included by the LDS church in one of its manuals?

 

mfbukowski

This has been answered a hundred times, and here I am. like a fool. actually responding to you again

 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

Could you provide me the post#'s where you addressed why you believe that the official LDS manuals teach something that is false?

 

(BTW when I say "false" that is your opinion--I am sure other LDS would disagree with you on this point)

[Canadaigua]

So-called "official manuals" are merely manuals published by the LDS Church in order to edify the membership. They carry no canonical authority and are frequently changed. . .

So it is fair to conclude that "official LDS manuals" include false teachings?

 

Are these false teachings that are included in the "official LDS manuals" overlooked by your prophet and other LDS leadership?  Perhaps you could identify this error with your leadership because I am sure that they would like it corrected.

[thesometimesaint]

So it is fair to conclude that "official LDS manuals" include false teachings?

 

Are these false teachings that are included in the "official LDS manuals" overlooked by your prophet and other LDS leadership?  Perhaps you could identify this error with your leadership because I am sure that they would like it corrected.

 

Non Sequitur.

 

The LDS do not hold any mortal man, man made object, or idea, as inerrant. We are constantly changing/upgrading our teaching manuals for a variety of reasons.

SEE: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[Robert F. Smith]

So-called "official manuals" are merely manuals published by the LDS Church in order to edify the membership. They carry no canonical authority and are frequently changed. . .

So it is fair to conclude that "official LDS manuals" include false teachings?

 

Are these false teachings that are included in the "official LDS manuals" overlooked by your prophet and other LDS leadership?  Perhaps you could identify this error with your leadership because I am sure that they would like it corrected.

False premises generally lead to false conclusions, as is the case with your palaver here, Canadaigua.

 

I suppose that the Sunday School manuals promulgated by the Methodist Church come under the very same strictures applied to LDS materials (http://www.umcdiscipleship.org/resources/using-approved-united-methodist-curriculum).  They change and adapt over the years based on the opinions of those writing and distributing the materials.  I suppose that from time to time someone like you raises questions about the quality of the Methodist Sunday School materials, with a view toward improving them.  I see no problem with that.  Do you?

 

A good many changes in Church policies and teachings have undoubtedly taken place since my Grandfather Walter Grant Smith was a Methodist Minister beginning in the teens of the 20th century.  And certainly since my ancestor Sampson Smith was the pastor of Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church in Pennsylvania back in the pre-Revolutionary era (he was also master of the synod prep school there at Chestnut Level).  Unlike you, I try not to pass apriori false judgments upon the work of these fine men.  They had a deep commitment to the work of the Lord.  The same is true of the Brethren who lead the LDS Church.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So it is fair to conclude that "official LDS manuals" include false teachings?

 

Are these false teachings that are included in the "official LDS manuals" overlooked by your prophet and other LDS leadership?  Perhaps you could identify this error with your leadership because I am sure that they would like it corrected.

No it is not fair to say that. Only a person with an axe to grind looks at it the way you do.

 

Even if this were true, I would not even care about it. A total non issue as far as I am concerned.

[Russell C McGregor]

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 172-173; History of the Church 4:210-212.

 

"Sacrifice to Be Part of Restoration

It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. We frequently have mention made of the offering of sacrifice by the servants of the Most High in ancient days, prior to the law of Moses; which ordinances will be continued when the Priesthood is restored with all its authority, power and blessings.…

All Ordinances Restored

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass? It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.

It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time? The Priesthood has descended in a regular line from father to son, through their succeeding generations. (See Book of Doctrine and Covenants.) (October 5, 1840.) HC 4:207-212."

 

 

This topic came up in another thread and there was a brief discussion on it but that thread was closed prior to really having a good discussion on this specific topic.  I am starting a new thread on this because this is a fascinating topic and I would love to learn more about how this will play out within the LDS church.

 

Do LDS believe that they will be the ones who will restore animal sacrifice in the future?

Canadaigua,

One of the well-understood rules of honest Interfaith dialogue is this: everyone gets to speak for their own beliefs, and for their own faith tradition.

This means, inter alia, that nobody gets to flourish some relatively obscure text from someone else's faith tradition and demand that those who hold to that tradition explain it to the questioner's satisfaction.

If such a text does become a topic of discussion, the non-believer doesn't presume to tell the believers what the "orthodox" or "mainstream" understanding of that text is (or should be) within the believers' faith tradition.

Because that's the believers' role.

So, in the case of this quote, it's up to you to ask us what it means to us. And it's up to us to tell you.

Not the other way around.

And, having read the quote you've provided, I see no reason at all to anticipate the restoration of bloody animal sacrifice.

There, does that answer your question?

[CCRW]

What a marathon.  Some very interesting thoughts from some patient individuals!  Thanks for an interesting read!

 

Hey Canadaigua how about repeating that all again for Brother McGregors edification?

[Russell C McGregor]

What a marathon.  Some very interesting thoughts from some patient individuals!  Thanks for an interesting read!

 

Hey Canadaigua how about repeating that all again for Brother McGregors edification?

 

It's okay.  I've read the whole thread.

 

Was there something you thought I missed?

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................

And, having read the quote you've provided, I see no reason at all to anticipate the restoration of bloody animal sacrifice.

There, does that answer your question?

Canadaigua asked "Do LDS believe that they will be the ones who will restore animal sacrifice in the future?"

 

My response would be that most LDS members do not ask the question because they are unaware of the issue.  So most LDS members have no belief on the matter.  For those who are aware, opinions vary.

 

We discussed this matter on another thread not long ago, and I don't believe that any overwhelming conclusion was reached there.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.  I have repeatedly suggested that it is the Jews who will restore animal sacrifice for a time, in Jerusalem.  That is currently what they intend to do.  I see no reason for the LDS priesthood to restore animal sacrifice, and the Jews are unlikely to pay any heed to what the Mormons think on the matter.

[CCRW]

It's okay.  I've read the whole thread.

 

Was there something you thought I missed?

When Vance came back into the conversation, we get a broken record (on top of many broken records).  I figured a new face would trigger it all over again.

 

eta: and of course I wanted to see the new you!

Edited April 12, 2015 by CCRW

[Vance]

When Vance came back into the conversation, we get a broken record (on top of many broken records).  I figured a new face would trigger it all over again.

You are welcome.

[Canadaigua]

Non Sequitur.

 

The LDS do not hold any mortal man, man made object, or idea, as inerrant. We are constantly changing/upgrading our teaching manuals for a variety of reasons.

SEE: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

With this position isn't it possible that every single belief that you hold to be true could be false?

[Canadaigua]

Canadaigua asked "Do LDS believe that they will be the ones who will restore animal sacrifice in the future?"

 

My response would be that most LDS members do not ask the question because they are unaware of the issue.  So most LDS members have no belief on the matter.  For those who are aware, opinions vary.

 

We discussed this matter on another thread not long ago, and I don't believe that any overwhelming conclusion was reached there.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.  I have repeatedly suggested that it is the Jews who will restore animal sacrifice for a time, in Jerusalem.  That is currently what they intend to do.  I see no reason for the LDS priesthood to restore animal sacrifice, and the Jews are unlikely to pay any heed to what the Mormons think on the matter.

 

 

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.172-173; History of the Church 4:210-212.

 

 

Sacrifice to Be Part of Restoration

 

It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

 

The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. . ."

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/AnimalSacrificesFuture.pdf

 

Robert a couple questions for you from the above quote

 

1.  In the quote above it says "Sacrifice to Be Part of Restoration".  Do you believe that the actions of Jews who reject Christ and his teachings would be considered part of the "Restoration"?

 

2.  It says "The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation."  Yet you said "I see no reason for the LDS priesthood to restore animal sacrifice".  It appears that your position is in opposition to what Joseph Smith stated.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Canadaigua

[Freedom]

With this position isn't it possible that every single belief that you hold to be true could be false?

Our doctrines come from the scriptures and from the official declarations. The scriptures leave a lot to interpretation,such any possible return of animal sacrifices. Just because peripheral ideas can be proven to be false has no bearing on the doctrines of the Restoration. There are some fundamental doctrines that are undisputed and these include priesthood authority and priesthood keys, the nature of God, apostasy and Restoration and the plan of salvation.

 

You are drawing a comparison between what is found in a church manual and what is found in our official cannon. Even you should see how silly that is.  

[thesometimesaint]

Jesus the Christ was the final sacrifice for our sins. Our sacrifice is a broken heart and contrite spirit, a turning to God. NO animal sacrifice is recognized by the LDS. Nor will it be recognized in the future.

[Russell C McGregor]

 

 

 

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.172-173; History of the Church 4:210-212.

 

 

Sacrifice to Be Part of Restoration

 

It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

 

The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. . ."

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/AnimalSacrificesFuture.pdf

 

Robert a couple questions for you from the above quote

 

1.  In the quote above it says "Sacrifice to Be Part of Restoration".  Do you believe that the actions of Jews who reject Christ and his teachings would be considered part of the "Restoration"?

 

2.  It says "The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation."  Yet you said "I see no reason for the LDS priesthood to restore animal sacrifice".  It appears that your position is in opposition to what Joseph Smith stated.

 

 

Canadaigua,

 

People who are making a genuine, good-faith effort to understand the doctrines of a faith tradition other than their own, can always be recognised.  They ask questions; they don't presume to lecture those who follow that tradition about what their own doctrines entail.

 

I have read your quote again.

 

I still don't see where it requires bloody animal sacrifice.

 

If you think it does, would you please point it out to me?

 

Thanks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Canadaigua,

 

People who are making a genuine, good-faith effort to understand the doctrines of a faith tradition other than their own, can always be recognised.  They ask questions; they don't presume to lecture those who follow that tradition about what their own doctrines entail.

 

I have read your quote again.

 

I still don't see where it requires bloody animal sacrifice.

 

If you think it does, would you please point it out to me?

 

Thanks.

Don't you know? That "sacrifice" means "animal sacrifice".

 

Any time you see that word always put "animal" before it.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[mnn727]

Jesus sacrifice (the atonement) ended the need for animal sacrifice. So under what premise are you disallowing/disavowing Christ's sacrifice to have to turn back to animal sacrifice?

 

Animal sacrifice (on this planet at least) is done for all time. Anyone who says otherwise - no matter who it is - is saying Christ's sacrifice doesn't count.

Edited April 18, 2015 by mnn727

[GingerRed]

Jesus sacrifice (the atonement) ended the need for animal sacrifice. So under what premise are you disallowing/disavowing Christ's sacrifice to have to turn back to animal sacrifice?

 

Animal sacrifice (on this planet at least) is done for all time. Anyone who says otherwise - no matter who it is - is saying Christ's sacrifice doesn't count.

 

 

Here, here!!!  

 

 

Red

[Robert F. Smith]

Jesus sacrifice (the atonement) ended the need for animal sacrifice. So under what premise are you disallowing/disavowing Christ's sacrifice to have to turn back to animal sacrifice?

 

Animal sacrifice (on this planet at least) is done for all time. Anyone who says otherwise - no matter who it is - is saying Christ's sacrifice doesn't count.

The Jews at the Temple Institute in Israel are unlikely to give much heed to your absolute declarations.  https://www.templeinstitute.org/ .  I always recommend humility in making predictions about the future.  Your non-prophetic predictions here are likely to come back and bite you, unless you think yourself an authentic prophet of God.