Under the Banner of Heaven Trailer

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

That's how important it is not to change ordinances. 

No, that's to teach the importance of following Christ with exactness.

We CANNOT "change ordinances" any more than WE can print "real money".

One is on the AUTHORITY of the government and the other is on the AUTHORITY of the prophet!

If the Government decided to put Alfed E. Newman on the hundred dollar bill, it would still be worth $100.

If the prophet said God told him we were to stand on our heads as an ordinance, as a symbol, that is the ordinance.  I would probably not do that one because I would not believe it to be efficacious, nor did I have a testimony of it.

If you don't believe it will work it won't! 

Same with dollars and cryptocurrencies for that matter! Faith is what does it, not magic words!

Faith in God and testimonies of God and his ordinances is what changes lives.

I have tried everything any human has come up with, an for me, I know it works.

But some kid flubbing some word does NOT change an ordinance.

Not following our testimonies with exactness changes our lives for the worse.

It's about the FUNCTION of belief in our lives, not magic incantations 

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you ever read any of the links/quotes we provide???

 

 

After reading junk like the below and seeing that Ben Spackman shares scriptures found in Deuteronomy and some with Moses, who would want to believe men that write things like this. I believe it's men that want to live however they want and then say it came from God. http://www.thehypertexts.com/Bible Rape Sex Slavery.htm

When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If everyone is killed except the virgin girls, and the virgin girls are forced to become “wives” to the men who wiped out their families, that is a form of sex slavery. As we will see below, the "wives" were not really wives, but could be put out on the street if the "men of God" grew tired of them:

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men ... Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded ... Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

If everyone is killed except the virgin girls, and the men who did the killing can keep the virgin girls “for themselves,” it seems more than obvious what will happen to the girls, who will serve the conquering warriors as sex slaves.

The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the commandment of Moses to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children. According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, Moses had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." According to Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse." According to Rabbi Meir, "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse."

Edited May 2, 2022 by Tacenda

[ttribe]

I don't know, the words published in U.S. Senate Document 486 of the Reed Smoot hearings in 1906 seem pretty straightforward. All of this 'what it really meant' talk looks a lot like trying to cover for another embarrassing chapter in LDS history.

[Teancum]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:59 AM, mfbukowski said:

You don't if you are a decent human being

Really?  Why?

On 4/30/2022 at 3:59 AM, mfbukowski said:

If you are talking about a peeping Tom, do you sneak around your neighborhood looking for "real" teenager shots?

These are just excuses to profane what others find sacred.

Disgusting 

 

So just because someone says something is "sacred" we have to respect that?  If a child molester thinks what they do is "sacred" do we need to respect that? Oaths of vengeance, oaths of slitting your throat, etc can't be talked about because some thing it is "sacred?"  I don't think so.

[Teancum]

On 4/30/2022 at 8:57 PM, ttribe said:

I was 1991, but my mother had made me aware of the changes just before I went through. At the time, I was a bit too overwhelmed to really process the meaning(s) of it all.

I was 1979.  My wife 1981.  After the Lafferty event she could hardly go to the temple at least until the penalties were dropped.

[Teancum]

On 5/1/2022 at 12:54 AM, mfbukowski said:

 

Nicely put, I agree.

You see what you want to see or what has been described before you see it, now there are folks who will never "see" what they have never seen in any other way, or understand it allegorically.

The poison pen

It assures that fewer people will decipher, or even try decipher the "semaphore code" of other gestures and motions

And they will attend for years in blissful ignorance. Not even seeing what is right before their eyes.

Very sad

 

Yea you live in a total different universe than almost all LDS true believers but you want to pretend they are all as nuanced as you.  But they are not.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

feel strongly that people can't be as ignorant of the role of rituals and symbols as they appear in this thread, or of the common language of sin and redemption; consequently, it seems to me that critics are willing to feign ignorance because it facilitates their insatiable desire to express outrage. The concept that the 'wages of sin is death' is essential to the doctrine of Christ. 'Disgust' with simile curses therefore is really just a rejection of the concept of sin and Atonement.

Bravissimo!!! ☆☆☆

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yea you live in a total different universe than almost all LDS true believers but you want to pretend they are all as nuanced as you.  But they are not.

Thanks! Glad you see that. It's a step forward!

Of course I know that!! That's why I am here.

My views are perfectly consistent with all of LDS Doctrine. 

You can parrot the anti position all you like, I have no idea why you think that thinking like others is valuable.

I have years of training in making one's own views and I treasure not being a parrot.

We are building our individual worlds right now. We don't have to wait for the Celestial Kingdom.

This is great practice, thanks for the compliment.  And apparently mr. T agrees as well.

Made my day! 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I was 1979.  My wife 1981.  After the Lafferty event she could hardly go to the temple at least until the penalties were dropped.

So sad.  Genuinely sorry.

[mfbukowski]

 

Wittgenstein quote:

"It strikes me that a religious belief could only be something like a pas sionate commitment to a system of reference. Hence, although it's belief, it's really a way of living, a way of assessing life. It's passionately get ting hold of this interpretation. Instruction in a religious faith, therefore, would have to take the form of a portrayal, a description, of that system of reference, while at the same time being an appeal to conscience. And this combination would have to result in the pupil himself, of his own accord, passionately taking hold of the system of reference. It would be as though someone were first to let me see the hopelessness of my situ ation and then show me the means of rescue until, of my own accord, or not at any rate led to it by my instructor, I ran to it and grasped it.: (CV, 64c)

[mfbukowski]

Another Wittgenstein quote:

"A proof of God's existence ought really to be something by means of which one could convince oneself that God exists. But I think that what believers who have furnished such proofs have wanted to do is to give their belief an intellectual analysis and foundation, although they them selves would not have come to bellef as result of such proofs. Perhaps one could 'convince someone that God exists' by means of a certain kind of upbringing, by shaping his life in such and such a way."

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks! Glad you see that. It's a step forward!

Ok.

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course I know that!! That's why I am here.

Ok

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My views are perfectly consistent with all of LDS Doctrine. 

I am not sure I have ever said they were not.  I just think  that most LDS including the leaders do not approach their truth like you do.

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You can parrot the anti position all you like, I have no idea why you think that thinking like others is valuable.

I don't think that necessarily.  I just point out that your approach in unique and not the norm amongst LDS.

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have years of training in making one's own views and I treasure not being a parrot.

We are building our individual worlds right now. We don't have to wait for the Celestial Kingdom.

This is great practice, thanks for the compliment.  And apparently mr. T agrees as well.

Made my day! 

 

 

 

I don't suggest you be a parrot.  Glad I made your day. I am all for following the path we are led on so long as it does not hurt us and others.  And I do not think your path or any others is more correct.than mine.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't think that necessarily.  I just point out that your approach in unique and not the norm amongst LDS.

That's a comon thing I hear from nay-sayers of the Church. *You* may be rational, but gosh dang it, the rest of Mormondom isn't. /sigh

[Tacenda]

I joined Sunstone Under the Banner of Heaven Watch Group FB group, which even has the sister of Brenda as a member. One person posted this quote from Andrew Garfield, which is spot on. 

Question to Andrew Garfield. "How does your Under the Banner of Heaven character, a Mormon detective investigating fundamentalists, differ from other religious people you've played?" A: "It was very different because it's actually a study of ego more than anything else. [the fundamentalists] are using the idea of God and something greater to justify egotistic, small-minded, narrow, selfish acts. Fundamentalism involves certainty, which has nothing to do with faith. Certainty is an egoic kind of small-minded stance that is evidently incredibly dangerous. Men will us it to justify doing abhorrent, destructive acts."

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

That's a comon thing I hear from nay-sayers of the Church. *You* may be rational, but gosh dang it, the rest of Mormondom isn't. /sigh

I did not say that at all.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ok.

Ok

I am not sure I have ever said they were not.  I just think  that most LDS including the leaders do not approach their truth like you do.

I don't think that necessarily.  I just point out that your approach in unique and not the norm amongst LDS.

I don't suggest you be a parrot.  Glad I made your day. I am all for following the path we are led on so long as it does not hurt us and others.  And I do not think your path or any others is more correct.than mine.

Neither do I.  So why hassle me about seeing things differently than others?

That is the great inconsistency you don't see!!  There IS no such thing as "more correct" in religion except in social morals.  Murder is always wrong.  It's a bad path for evolution, as is obvious in the Ukraine.

We all need to follow our own hearts and follow them regardless of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.  And of course scripture is a product of a human hand when God is a human.  No paradox there.  

Mental health is following the path within each of us, which I am convinced all eventually leads to the same place.

Jesus is quoted as saying "The kingdom of God is within " and the COJCLDS and Moroni 10 and James 1 all agree with that.

So no, there IS no "more correct" in the COJCLDS than following one's perspective of what "the spirit" tells us.

You can't have both "follow the spirit" and "... but always do what I tell you God tells me" as spoken by a human.

So relativism is built into the very core and fiber of the church!

BUT

Here's the beauty of this wonderful gospel - we all have a second chance after we die to find out how well we passed the test the first time around, and THEN see THE TRUTH for the first time in our eternal existence- a postulate of the paradigm - and decide where we want to spend the time after the resurrection!!

It's a flawless paradigm imo!!

Relativism to explore earth life and find a path here, THEN a second chance with TRUTH obvious and then ending up where we are most comfortable!  

It's the best paradigm man has come up with, with guidance from the Man of Holiness!

So forget about "correct" on this side of the Veil- except in morals, where society makes the rules- even the world condemns what is happening in Ukraine-we are all the prodigal sons and daughters doing our rumspringas here- then returning to our merciful Fathers, who gives us a second chance with the truth staring us in the face!

THAT is the COJCLDS as I see it.

And lose "correct" from your vocabulary and substitute "best", take two aspirin, an call me in the morning 

Even science only gives us "best theories".

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I did not say that* at all.

"I just think  that most LDS including the leaders do not approach their truth like you do."
"I just point out that your approach in unique and not the norm amongst LDS."
"Yea you live in a total different universe than almost all LDS true believers but you want to pretend they are all as nuanced as you.  But they are not."

I don't know if your categorical denial of "did not say that at all" rises to the level of truthiness. Sure sounds like something akin to that. Though, to be fair, not all Mormons are rational. If God required a system of truth discernment that required sophisticated levels of reasoning, training, and education ... well, that would be pretty darn silly and exclude most of humanity access to the blessings of the Gospel. While not required for an understanding of the truthfulness of the Gospel, rationality and education are entirely compatible with it and more than a few Mormons are rational and educated. Heck, activity level and commitment within the Church tends to increase with education and not decrease.

* The antecedent of "that" was my comment, "*You* may be rational, but gosh dang it, the rest of Mormondom isn't."

 

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, Nofear said:

"I just think  that most LDS including the leaders do not approach their truth like you do."
"I just point out that your approach in unique and not the norm amongst LDS."
"Yea you live in a total different universe than almost all LDS true believers but you want to pretend they are all as nuanced as you.  But they are not."

I don't know if your categorical denial of "did not say that at all" rises to the level of truthiness. Sure sounds like something akin to that. Though, to be fair, not all Mormons are rational. If God required a system of truth discernment that required sophisticated levels of reasoning, training, and education ... well, that would be pretty darn silly and exclude most of humanity access to the blessings of the Gospel. While not required for an understanding of the truthfulness of the Gospel, rationality and education are entirely compatible with it and more than a few Mormons are rational and educated. Heck, activity level and commitment within the Church tends to increase with education and not decrease.

* The antecedent of "that" was my comment, "*You* may be rational, but gosh dang it, the rest of Mormondom isn't."

 

Good grief, he's talking about Mark's philosophy-based approach to Mormonism, not the concept of rationality.

[Teancum]

31 minutes ago, Nofear said:

"I just think  that most LDS including the leaders do not approach their truth like you do."
"I just point out that your approach in unique and not the norm amongst LDS."
"Yea you live in a total different universe than almost all LDS true believers but you want to pretend they are all as nuanced as you.  But they are not."

I don't know if your categorical denial of "did not say that at all" rises to the level of truthiness. Sure sounds like something akin to that. Though, to be fair, not all Mormons are rational. If God required a system of truth discernment that required sophisticated levels of reasoning, training, and education ... well, that would be pretty darn silly and exclude most of humanity access to the blessings of the Gospel. While not required for an understanding of the truthfulness of the Gospel, rationality and education are entirely compatible with it and more than a few Mormons are rational and educated. Heck, activity level and commitment within the Church tends to increase with education and not decrease.

* The antecedent of "that" was my comment, "*You* may be rational, but gosh dang it, the rest of Mormondom isn't."

 

You are wrong.  This is a long going discussion I have been having with Mark.  You don't know the background at all.

[Nofear]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Good grief, he's talking about Mark's philosophy-based approach to Mormonism, not the concept of rationality.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are wrong.  This is a long going discussion I have been having with Mark.  You don't know the background at all.

It's not that long, nor that difficult to read. Nonetheless, denial that anything was said other than most Mormons don't have mfbukowski's particular version of rational thought and that nothing at all was said or implied about the rationality of the LDS population as a whole, is so noted. After all, if one had said something like that it would be derogatory, bigoted, and irrational. Let me not accuse those that vociferously oppose the truth claims of the Church of engaging in that kind of behavior.
 

PS: Thank you for your comments, mfbukowski. It gives articulate verbiage and insights to some similar thoughts that I have on the matter. I'm not quite as hardcore as all reality is perception as you tend to be, but I do quite appreciate the thoughtfulness you bring to the table and enjoy reading your comments (in much more than just this thread).

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

It's not that long, nor that difficult to read. Nonetheless, denial that anything was said other than most Mormons don't have mfbukowski's particular version of rational thought and that nothing at all was said or implied about the rationality of the LDS population as a whole, is so noted. After all, if one had said something like that it would be derogatory, bigoted, and irrational. Let me not accuse those that vociferously oppose the truth claims of the Church of engaging in that kind of behavior.

It has nothing to do with rational or irrational nor praising mfbukowski's approach to truth. The point is hardly any LDS approach it like he does. That is it. They don't think in the same philosophical terms.  In fact in the past it has been a criticism of his approach. So keep harping up this tree if you want but that simply was not my point.

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

 

 

PS: Thank you for your comments, mfbukowski. It gives articulate verbiage and insights to some similar thoughts that I have on the matter. I'm not quite as hardcore as all reality is perception as you tend to be, but I do quite appreciate the thoughtfulness you bring to the table and enjoy reading your comments (in much more than just this thread).

 

[Nofear]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It has nothing to do with rational or irrational nor praising mfbukowski's approach to truth. The point is hardly any LDS approach it like he does. That is it. They don't think in the same philosophical terms.  In fact in the past it has been a criticism of his approach. So keep harping up this tree if you want but that simply was not my point.

Like I said, I acknowledge that you are simply stating "Yea [mfbukowski] live[s] in a total different universe than almost all LDS true believers" and making no comment one way or the other about the capability of other LDS believers to think rationally. After all, taking the stance that LDS true believers are wholly irrational weirdos could come across as demeaning, ignorant, and bigoted and clearly no one is accusing you of that. Nuance...on the other hand, well obviously to think almost all others "as nuanced" as he is to live in a "different universe". But, I even agree with that. I am quite confident in asserting that his rational nuance is very much above average. See, we are all agreed now, yes?

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here's the beauty of this wonderful gospel - we all have a second chance after we die to find out how well we passed the test the first time around, and THEN see THE TRUTH for the first time in our eternal existence- a postulate of the paradigm - and decide where we want to spend the time after the resurrection!!

I'm not certain I understand what you're saying here.  It's sounding almost like live life now and repent later kind of thing.  Almost.

 

How does Alma 34:31-31 play into this?

31 Yea, I would that ye would come forth and ^aharden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the ^bday of your ^csalvation; and therefore, if ye will repent and ^dharden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.

32 For behold, this ^alife is the time for men to ^bprepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of ^cthis life is the day for men to perform their ^dlabors.

 

When you say we'll see THE TRUTH for the first time what are you meaning?  It seems to me that the only TRUTH that will really matter to me is what kind of a person I am.  Will I be a different person after I see THE TRUTH?  I'll certainly have more knowledge, but isn't faith more important than knowledge?

[Tacenda]

This may have been on Dan and Ron's mind because Brenda wasn't cooperating. 

“Now take a person in this congregation … and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?” All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil … I have known a great many men who left this church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them, the wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbids this principle’s being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.”

(Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, Feb. 8, 1857, printed in the Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 219-20)"

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This may have been on Dan and Ron's mind because Brenda wasn't cooperating. 

“Now take a person in this congregation … and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?” All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil … I have known a great many men who left this church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them, the wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbids this principle’s being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.”

(Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, Feb. 8, 1857, printed in the Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 219-20)"

I would doubt that either of them have ever read that.  We talk about how the church "hides" its history.  The 1980s was even more "hidden" so I have a hard time that they would have come across it.  They knew of blood atonement, I'm not doubting that, but not that specific speech.

Also, I don't think the murder had anything to do with blood atonement.  The removal revelation was not talking about blood atonement or anything about sins that the 4 named had committed (how does an infant even commit a sin under any "Mormon" theology?).  The 4 were "hindering" the work and that's why they were to be removed.  It was more like how Laban had to be killed to allow Nephi to get the plates.  Dan and the book reference that story multiple times.

Dan does reference "The Peacemaker".  He was fascinated with it and wrote about it multiple times in his journal.  He taught his brothers, including Allen, about it.  He believed that Joseph Smith wrote it and that it gave instructions on how to correctly treat a wife.  The wife is not supposed to leave the house, handle money, etc.  Brenda was not accepting of that idea and fought back against it.  She also counseled her sister-in-laws about it.  So instead of having a "true wife" (per The Peacemaker), Allen had a rebelious wife who was "hindering" things.  Including helping Ron's wife get out of a bad situation.

I think the ideas behind "The Peacemaker" and the story of Nephi and Laban were the strongest reasons behind why the murders took place.