Anti-Mormon Tactics: Out-of-Context Quotations and the Falsehoods about "Blood Atonement"

[Greg West]

====================================================================================
Here's a blog post from last September that I'm bumping, due to this topic appearing in recent headlines about a capital murder case in Utah. The antis are already starting to spread the topic on sites like Free Republic. This will give you some background on it.
====================================================================================

Hi everyone. I've been away blogging in another forum for a the past two weeks, so I've been a bit lax about posting here on S.P.A.M. The following post is a reply from this other religious forum where I am routinely attacked by an anti-Mormon named Jeff. Jeff is the one I had challenged to the debate, which I told you about last week. I began the topic by summarizing the whole debate challenge and how Jeff, after declining to debate me using just the Bible, redoubled his anti-Mormon attacks. In this barrage, he let go with an attack using the falsehood known as "blood atonement." This is a controversial topic, which "antis" usually dredge up from out-of-context statements from the Journal of Discourses. This is somewhat lengthy, but it is necessary to show how anti-Mormons are liars and those who repeat their accusations are misled. Here's the post:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday, Jeff posted anti-Mormon lies of the most heinous nature in this thread: (LINK) I am placing my rebuttal here because the forum will truncate the reply, and I know this one will be lengthy. Jeff's protests that I use my blog to escape debating him is simply bogus. Have you noticed any curtailment in his ability to respond or attack?

Jeff's last few posts have been of a frenzied nature because of his recent embarrassment. You see, I challenged him to a debate with a moderator, rules, and a consequence. He rejected the opportunity to disprove 16 specific Mormon doctrines false using only the Bible. He says he did so because he didn't want to face the consequence I suggested: the loser of the debate, as determined by Sid, would have his RG membership deleted and agree not to return. I gave Jeff every advantage in the debate.

Why would he refuse the opportunity to disprove 16 distinctive points of doctrine of what he terms a "non-biblical cult" in a debate with terms that yielded him a tactical advantage? For two reasons: first, he would have to do it only from the Bible, which means his favorite weapon--anti-Mormon literature--would be unavailable to him and second, he knows that the Bible can't disprove Mormonism. Otherwise, he would have accepted the terms of the debate, confident that the Bible could confound a "non-Christian cultist."

Jeff's embarrassment has been so acute that his normally specious logic has degenerated even more. For example, yesterday he replied to my claim that "he is unable to declare Mormonism a false religion or a cult simply based on the evidence available to him in his Bible," with this comment:

"That [sic] all I need, and is what defines your doctrine as false. My thoughts don't really matter much.
As far a debate, start a topic according to your rules. I just won't bet my "Insignificant membership to RG"

Then he follows this statement with a vehement attack on my religion using out-of-context quotes which were intentionally edited by anti-Mormons to reflect negatively on the Church. The original source of these quotes, from which these quotes are removed from context, is the Journal of Discourses, an encyclopedic, 26-volume collection of sermons and public addresses from the early Utah pioneer period in the late 19th century. It is a favorite "hunting ground" for anti-Mormons because the set of books is so large and so expensive, that even most Mormons don't have these volumes in their personal libraries.

Thus, when an anti-Mormon cites Journal of Discourses, most Latter-day Saints won't or can't make an educated defense. They will simply bear testimony of what they know to be true and leave it there. Fortunately, I do own the Journal of Discourses and I have it as a set of searchable CD-ROMs, which makes for instant retrieval and verification of its use for this very purpose: showing that anti-Mormons use the most dishonest and prejudicial tactics available to try to inflame opinions against Mormons.

Using quotes from non-authoritative sources and out-of-context citations is probably the single most common anti-Mormon technique. I describe this technique in my book, A Mormon Answers the Hard Questions Posed by Anti-Mormons. Here's a relevant quote from my book.

=========================================================================
TACTIC #1 - USE OF NON-AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES AND OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTATIONS
=========================================================================
"Latter-day Saints do not refer to these works for doctrine. The approved sources of doctrine in the Church are the holy scriptures and inspired pronouncements from Church authorities.

Scriptures used by Latter-day Saints include the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. An example of an inspired pronouncement from Church authorities would include General Conference talks by Church leaders and the monthly First Presidency Message from the Ensign magazine. This message is available without cost on the official Church web site at http://www.lds.org.

Any other source of info should be taken with a "grain of salt.” (That includes this book as well!) Thus any quotations you see from historical, reference, or doctrinal works by LDS members, scholars, don't claim to be authoritative, binding doctrinal teachings. Even statements made by General Authorities of the Church to individual members or in stake conferences are not general Church doctrine or policies. However, when a servant of God is moved upon by the Holy Ghost and that Spirit is made manifest in the hearts of his listeners, that communication is every bit as valid as written scripture. The Holy Ghost is the source of all revelation and truth, whether in the scriptures or spoken from the pulpit.

Even so, the Church is governed by revelation and Common Consent. When new revelation is given for the general body of the Church, it is published and announced and then put to sustaining vote by all Church members in a General Conference. In this manner, not only does the Lord reveal his will via revelation but the Saints accept it officially as revelation for the entire Church."

Let me clarify one more time for those of you who are just skimming this instead of reading attentively. The Journal of Discourses is not a work from which Latter-day Saints derive their doctrine. It is a historical record, not a doctrinal one. In 26 volumes, there are inspired sermons, expressions of opinion, and even some non-doctrinal speculations. To fully appreciate them, as one would any historical work, they need to be understood in the historical context of their times.

Here is that context: Mormons had been forcibly driven from their homes by religious bigots and the governments of two states. They were led by a modern-day Moses, Brigham Young, to a barren stretch of desert in the Great Salt Lake that no one else wanted. So bleak were their prospects that frontiersman Jim Bridger told Brigham Young he'd pay him $1,000 for the first bushel of corn he'd raise in the Salt Lake Valley. The Latter-day Saints survived only because of miraculous Divine intervention on numerous occasions. The saints identified strongly with Israel of the Old Testament. They had been led to a promised land in the desert by their prophet and it was only through God's grace that they endured.

They were threatened by and ultimately occupied by the federal government. Our leaders were driven into exile once again. All Church property was seized at one time. It was a time of confrontation over what the Constitution really means by religious liberty and how far the wretched "Gentiles" would permit the expression of religious freedom when it was applied to someone besides them.

OK, having prefaced the remarks and given you some background on an issue you probably never knew existed to begin with, let's examine the citations Jeff posted from Journal of Discourses.

=========================================================================
OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTE #1
=========================================================================

The first one was:

"What do you suppose they would say in old Massachusetts should they hear that the Latter-day Saints had received a revelation or commandment to 'lay judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet'? What would they say in old Connecticut? They would raise a universal howl of 'how wicked the Mormons are. They are killing the evildoers who are among them. Why, I hear that they kill the wicked away up yonder in Utah.'... What do I care for the wrath of man? No more than I do for the chickens that run in my dooryard. I am here to teach the ways of the Lord, and lead men to life everlasting; but if they have not a mind to go there, I wish them to keep out of my path." - From sermon by , Brigham Young in 1855, Journal of Discourses, Vol. III., page 50.

This statement is one single paragraph taken out of context from a discourse on the need for devoted honesty. The saints, like ancient Israel, depended upon the mercy of God for their survival. Brigham Young spoke about how God dealt with thievery and dishonesty in ancient times. In the Old Testament, stealing, immorality, blasphemy, and sabbath-breaking were capital offenses, punishable by stoning. Brigham Young had previously urged the saints to be absolutely honest in word and deed insomuch that they should always return that which they borrowed and attempt to locate the owners of lost items. Brigham Young said that (hypothetically speaking), if God were to command a return to the standard of justice and the expectation of honesty upheld by ancient Israel, they wouldn't expect the wicked Gentiles (non-Mormons) back East to sing our praises.

=========================================================================
THE QUOTE IN CONTEXT
=========================================================================

Here is the citation in context:

"After we had given the brethren such a scouring two or three months ago, about returning lost property when found, one or two men brought in two or three rusty nails of no value, which they had picked up; this was tantamount to saying to brother Sprague, "If we had found your purse, or if we had found Brigham's purse, we would see you in hell before we would return it." We wish to impress upon you the necessity of your bringing the ax you find, the hay fork, or any other lost property which you find, to the person who is appointed to take charge of such property, that the owners may again possess it. But if you should pick up a piece of rotten wood, and bring it to brother Brigham, or Dr. Sprague, with a show of honesty, and in derision of the counsel you have received, it would be like saying, "If we could find or steal your purses, you should never see them again. We are poor, miserable devils, and mean to live here by stealing from the Saints, and you cannot help yourselves."

Live here then, you poor, miserable curses, until the time of retribution, when your heads will have to be severed from your bodies. Just let the Lord Almighty say, "Lay judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet," and the time of thieves is short in this community. What do you suppose they would say in old Massachusetts, should they hear that the Latter-day Saints had received a revelation or commandment to lay "judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet?" What would they say in old Connecticut? They would raise a universal howl of, "How wicked those Mormons are; they are killing the evil doers who are among them; why I hear that they kill the wicked away up yonder in Utah." They do no[t] kill anybody down there, do they?

As for the inhabitants of the earth, who know anything about the "Mormons," having power to utter worse epithets against us than they do, they have to get more knowledge in order to do it; and as for those enemies who have been in our midst, feeling any worse than they do, they have first to know more; they are as full of bad feeling now as they can hold without bursting. What do I care for the wrath of man? No more than I do for the chickens that run in my dooryard. I am here to teach the ways of the Lord, and lead men to life everlasting, but if they have not a mind to go there, I wish them to keep out of my path.

I want the Elders of Israel to understand that if they are exposed in their stealing, lying, deceiving, wickedness, and covetousness, which is idolatry, they must not fly in a passion about it, for we calculate to expose you, from time to time, as we please, when we can get time to notice you.

During this Conference, I do not want to think where the "Mormons" have been, and how they have been treated, but I want to think of matters that will make my heart light, like the roe on the mountains--to reflect that the Lord Almighty has given me my firth on the land where He raised up a Prophet, and revealed the everlasting Gospel through him, and that I had the privilege of hearing it--of knowing and understanding it--of embracing and enjoying it. I feel like shouting hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained, and to whom He gave keys and power to build up the kingdom of God on earth and sustain it. These keys are committed to this people, and we have power to continue the work that Joseph commenced, until everything is prepared for the coming of the Son of Man. This is the business of the Latter-day Saints, and it is all the business we have on hand. When we come to worldly affairs, as they are called, they can be done in stormy weather, if we attend to the kingdom of God in fair weather."

The context is brutally direct, but the message is clear. God does not tolerate dishonesty in any degree. Brigham Young uses pointed, plain, direct language to send that message. He makes a comparison to the ancient laws of Israel, then he encourages the saints and the Elders to live up to the standard of honesty expected. Then he transitions to more pleasant topics at the end of the discourse. He does not threaten to cut off heads or execute anyone, however! The context makes all the difference.

=========================================================================
OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTE #2
=========================================================================

Moving on to the next passage Jeff cited:

"If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats." - From red hot blood atonement sermon by Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. II., page 311. At the conclusion of the injunction to "cut their throats, " "all the people said 'amen!' "

This sermon was delivered in 1855, during the escalation which led to the military occupation of Utah by the federal government in 1857. ((See, Utah War or Buchanan's Blunder in Wikipedia.)

The Latter-day Saints lived in anticipation of a full military assault on Salt Lake City. After having been driven out by the state militias of Missouri and Illinois, they had no doubt that the federal government would not hesitate to use force against them. Referring to that impending threat, Brigham Young said:

=========================================================================
THE QUOTE IN CONTEXT
=========================================================================

"As was observed by brother Pratt, that Kingdom is actually organized, and the inhabitants of the earth do not know it. If this people know anything about it, all right; it is organized preparatory to taking effect in the due time of the Lord, and in the manner that shall please Him. As observed by one of the speakers this morning, that Kingdom grows out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it is not the Church, for a man may be a legislator in that body which will issue laws to sustain the inhabitants of the earth in their individual rights, and still not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ at all.

And further, though a man may not even believe in any religion, it would be perfectly right, when necessary, to give him the privilege of holding a seat among that body which will make laws to govern all the nations of the earth and control those who make no profession of religion at all; for that body would be governed, controlled, and dictated to acknowledge others in those rights which they wish to enjoy themselves. Then the Latter-day Saints would be protected, if a Kingdom of this kind was on the earth, the same as all other people.

It was observed this morning that the government of the United States was the best or most wholesome one on the earth, and the best adapted to our condition. That is very true. And if the constitution of the United States, and the laws of the United States, and of the several States, were honored by the officers, by those who sit in judgment and dispense the laws to the people, yes, had even the letter of the law been honored, to say nothing of the spirit of it, of the spirit of right, it would have hung Governors, Judges, Generals, Magistrates, &c., for they violated the laws of their own States.

Such has been the case with our enemies in every instance that this people have been persecuted. If a person belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was guilty of stealing while living in the States, or if any of that Church were found guilty of murder, or any other transgression of the civil law, they ought to have been tried by the law, and have received the punishment affixed to the crime. Did any of the Latter-day Saints object to that! No, not one. Joseph the Prophet never objected to it, but on the contrary he urged it, prayed for it, and wished the Church to be delivered from all transgressors.

While we were in Illinois, if every transgressor of the law of that State, in our community, had been taken up and tried and punished, every Saint would have said, "Amen, we are better without than with them." So we say here, we are far better off without wicked men than with them. I would rather be in the midst of these mountains with one thousand, or even five hundred, men who are Latter-day Saints, than with five hundred thousand wicked men, in case all the forces of the earth were to come against us to battle, for God would fight the battles of the Saints, but He has not agreed to fight the battles of wicked men.

I say again that the constitution, and laws of the United States, and the laws of the different States, as a general thing, are just as good as we want, provided they were honored. But we find Judges who do not honor the laws, yes, officers of the law dishonor the law. Legislators and law makers are frequently the first violators of the laws they make. "When the wicked rule the people mourn," and when the corruption of a people bears down the scale in favor of wickedness, that people is nigh unto destruction.

We have the proof on hand, that instead of the laws being honored, they have been violated in every instance of persecution against this people; instead of the laws being made honorable, they have been trampled under the feet of lawyers, judges, sheriffs, governors, legislators, and nearly all the officers of the government; such persons are the most guilty of breaking the laws.

To diverge a little, in regard to those who have persecuted this people and driven them to the mountains, I intend to meet them on their own grounds. It was asked this morning how we could obtain redress for our wrongs; I will tell you how it could be done, we could take the same law they have taken, viz., mobocracy, and if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats. (All the people said, Amen.)

This would be meting out that treatment to wicked men, which they had measured to innocent persons. We could meet them on their own ground, when they will not honor the law, but will kill the Prophets and destroy the innocent. They could drive the innocent from their homes, take their houses and farms, cattle and goods, and destroy men, women, and children, walking over the laws of the United States, trampling them under their feet, and not honoring a single law.

Suppose I should follow the example they have shown us, and say, "Latter-day Saints, do ye likewise, and bid defiance to the whole clan of such men?" Some who are timid might say, "O! our property will be destroyed, and we shall be killed." If any man here is a coward, there are fine mountain retreats for those who feel their hearts beating, at every little hue and cry of the wicked, as though they would break their ribs.

After this year we shall very likely again have fruitful seasons. Now, you cowards, if there are any, hunt in these mountains until you find some cavern where no person can find you, and go there and store up grain enough to last you and your families seven years; then when the mob comes, take your wives and your children, and creep into your den, and there remain until the war is over.

Do not apostatize to save your lives, for if you do, you are sure to lose them. You may do some good by laying up a little more grain than you want, and by handing out a biscuit to a brave hearted soldier passing by, hungry and fatigued. I could hide myself in these mountains, and defy five hundred thousand men to find me. That is not all, I could hide this whole people, and fifty times more, in the midst of these mountains, and our enemies might hunt until they died with old age, and they could not find us. You who are cowards, lay up your crops another year and hide them away.

You know that almost every time that Gentiles address us in public, they are very mindful to caution the Latter-day Saints "not to fight, now don't fight." Have we ever wanted to fight them? No, but we have wanted to preach to them the Gospel of peace.

Again, they say, "We are afraid that you, Latter-day Saints, are becoming aliens to the United States; we are afraid your hearts are weaned from the brotherhood down yonder." Don't talk about weaning now, for we were weaned long ago, that is, we are or should be weaned from all wickedness and wicked men. I am so perfectly weaned that when I embraced "Mormonism," I could have left father, mother, wife, children, and every relation I had, and am weaned from everybody that will turn a deaf ear to the voice of revelation. We are already weaned, but remember, we are not weaned from the constitution of the United States, but only from wickedness, or at least we should be. Let every man and woman rise up in the strength of their God, and in their hearts ask no favors of the wicked; that is the way to live, and then let the wicked persecute, if they choose.

Are we going to fight? No, unless they come upon us and compel us either to fight or be slain.

So, if you actually had the patience to read all this, you'd see the context. If Mormons were to render, "eye for an eye" style justice as God did among ancient Israel, what would be the appropriate response to the impending invasion of a hostile army? To slay them and cut their throats would be justified by the law of the Old Testament.

The single sentence that Jeff or the one he "borrowed the quote from" says, if Mormons were to apply the same standard of "justice" and "mercy" applied to them by the Gentiles who killed their prophet and drove them into the wilderness, then they could "slit the throats" of their oppressors and still claim that they had acted in fairness. Murder and mobocracy was the rule that was applied to Mormons by the Gentiles.

But does Brigham Young promote that action? No, absolutely not. Instead he said, "You may do some good by laying up a little more grain than you want, and by handing out a biscuit to a brave hearted soldier passing by, hungry and fatigued." He also said, that the Mormons would not fight the Army unless they were compelled to for self-defense.

That's a whole different thing than what Jeff and his anti-Mormon friends assert isn't it? Brigham Young speaks for pacificm and benevolence towards the enemies of the Church.

=========================================================================
OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTE #3
=========================================================================

The last passage Jeff cites is an example of the use of hyperbole, something Jeff has used in this forum on occasion. Hyperbole is the intentional use of exaggeration for the purpose of heightening effect or catalyzing recognition. The out-of-context passage that Jeff cited was:

"I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom (the Mormon 'kingdom of God')? I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers, we need a place designated where we can shed their blood.... If any of you ask, do I mean you, I answer yes. If any woman asks, do I mean her, I answer yes.... We have been trying long enough with these people, and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word but in deed." - From sermon by Jedediah M. Grant, second counselor to Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV., pp. 49-50.

Jedediah Grant's remarks were directed towards Latter-day Saints who abandon obedience to the moral tenets of the church and engage in serious sins such as adultery, fornication, drunkenness, dishonesty, etc. As I mentioned previously, strict morality was expected because Mormons relied on God and received many miracles that helped them survive in this hostile wasteland. It was the fervent desire of the Church leadership to instill this reverence for God and the sense of absolute reliance upon him. Disobedience by the saints, could result in the withdrawal of God's blessings, threatening their very survival.

=========================================================================
THE QUOTE IN CONTEXT
=========================================================================

Thus Jedediah Grant uses hyperbole to express the sentiment that those who willfully engaged in sinful behavior should bear the consequences for threatening the survival of their brothers and sisters. In justifiable righteous indignation, Grant declared farcically:

"The same characters will get drunk and wallow in the mire and filth, and yet they call themselves Saints, and seem to glory in their conduct, and they pride themselves in their greatness and in their abominations.

They are the old hardened sinners, and are almost--if not altogether--past improvement, and are full of hell, and my prayer is that God's indignation may rest upon them, and that He will curse them from the crown of their heads to the soles of their feet.

I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood.

We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye.

You may think that I am not teaching you Bible doctrine, but what says the apostle Paul? I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood.

Talk about old clay; I would rather have clay from a new bank than some that we have had clogging the wheels for the last nineteen years. They are a perfect nuisance, and I want them cut off, and the sooner it is done the better.

What Jedediah Grant sought was to have these "perfect nuisance" saints, who purposefully disobeyed the laws of God, cut off or excommunicated from the Church. This is hyperbole. It is farcical. It is sarcastic. Does he really expect the sinners to make an appointment with the President of the Church to arrange their "executions?" Give me a break! Grant is expressing disdain and revulsion. He is a righteous man offended by sinful behavior, doing his utmost to pierce the hearts of the rebellious and bring them to repentance.

=========================================================================
JESUS COMMANDS SINNERS TO KILL THEMSELVES AND CUT OFF BODY PARTS
=========================================================================

Now, where have we read such a declaration as this before? Why Jesus Christ himself is quoted in no less than three places in the New Testament saying:

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (See Matt. 18: 6. Mark 9: 42, Luke 17: 2)

So did Jesus himself encourage Christians who sinned to kill themselves by drowning, having a millstone tied around their necks? How many Christians pluck out their eyes or hack off their feet and hands in case they might sin? Oh, this isn't literal? You mean Jesus Christ used hyperbole? Well, maybe it might occur when his servants preach the gospel.

=========================================================================
A CHRISTIAN (JEFF) TOLD ME TO HANG A MILLSTONE AROUND MY NECK
=========================================================================

Does this scripture sound familiar to you who have followed the debates Jeff and I have had? It should, because he has quoted it to me on three separate occasions here on RG and a couple times more on other Ning forums, stating that I would be better off hanging a millstone around my neck and killing myself for preaching what he believes is false doctrine. Does Jeff use hyperbole or does he really suggesting that should do myself mortal harm? Does Jeff and his Christian denomination practice the doctrine of "blood atonement?"

In conclusion, I have demonstrated that anti-Mormons intentionally use out-of-context quotations to try to defame and discredit the Church. Jeff does not study in any academically objective sense. He is a rabble-rouser who uses search engines to locate anti-Mormon web sites and then he copies and pastes from them. He doesn't care if the contents are true or not, so long as he can use them do discredit Mormonism. These are damnable lies and he will be held to account for his actions before God at the judgment. What does he gain from his actions? Do his attacks on the Mormons enhance faith in Christ or detract from it? When was the last time he engaged in positive preaching of his own doctrine instead of calumnizing Mormons?

To use such tactics is akin to a religious "drive-by shooting." It only takes a few seconds to cut and paste something that sows doubt in a defamatory way. That is the tactic of Satan, not Jesus Christ. It took me a few hours to find the materials I cited here and to draft this response. That's the nature of truth. It takes effort to uncover it. Seek and ye shall find is the promise to each of us.

Once again, I have exposed Jeff in the act of slandering the Mormon Church with falsehoods. I hope at least some of you will have the patience and fairness to read this rebuttal and evaluate it objectively. I am a witness that the men and women who founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were righteous and that they were guided by God's inspiration and enjoyed God's presence.

=====================================
Originally posted September 25, 2008
Bumped due to current events on May 4, 2009

[Ronnie Bray]

If any believes that blood atonement has no place in Christianity, then he is not a Christian.

The purpose of Christ's Atonement is that the shedding of his blood was the price that we were bought with.
[1 Cor 6:20]

Brigham Young is well known for being both direct and expansive at the same time. It is not sufficient that some interpret his remarks without knowing his background, his manner, the depth of his religion, or his love for his fellowmen.

Another cynical and deceitful tactic employed by ensnarers is what I term '"The so far and no further ploy." This is used to rip a statement out of the sentence of which it is an integral part.

For example, David Whitmer when asked, "Do you still believe the Book of Mormon to be true?" was said to have said, "I do not believe it!" This has been published several times in the anti genre, and the comment is provided that "David Whitmer did not believe the Book of Mormon is true!" accompanied by balloons, slow fiddling, and fireworks.

The truth adds up to something completely different. Whitmer's complete answer was, "I do not believe it; I KNOW it is true!"

[Greg West]

Well, I have to say that if I can help even one LDS member from losing his faith because of these kinds of accusations, I will be content. I don't expect to convert the antis, but if I can help someone here strengthen an investigator or a new member with S.P.A.M's offerings, that would make me feel that all this has been worthwhile.

[Brian Sanderson]

Well Greg, I think you're preaching to the choir here...and only the choir is listening. Careful study and thoughtful analysis is not what antis are all about...

[Tom Arnold]

Actually I can't think of any church in the old days that DIDN'T practice some form of blood atonement. I think the Catholics and Protestants are more guilty than the Mormons on this account. The Catholic Church had the Inquisition which was used to "Save souls" by ending the life of people who would not repent of their sins or convert to their religion. The Puritans burned people at the stake for being witches or heretics to save their souls (and take their land in the process).

People now a days can't burn anyone at the stake anymore but they sure look forward to all the sinners burning when judgement day comes. Which means they would still do it if they could get away with it. But now it is Jesus' job to burn the infidels.

But once again, never mind this because that would mean they are more guilty than the Mormons on following through with what they accuse the church of doing. Isn't learning fun.

Tom