Racial Language and the Book of Mormon

Racial Language Misunderstood

The book of Mormon claims for itself to contain human errors, repeatedly. When a human takes dictation, they hear things wrong occasionally, or remember them incorrectly. When a person hears, sees or receives knowledge or information by the Spirit and then must translate that into human language, errors also occur. We should not suppose that the work of God absolves us from the conditions of mortality, or that people such as Moses had an easier time receiving revelation or were not required to have as much faith as us. Rather, they show us what is possible for ourselves and revelation comes to them the same way it comes to us.

The Divine intention with written records is not to produce perfection because literalism or fundamentalism is divisive, whereas vagueness allows flexibility of interpretation. If the text is perfect, then individuals will assume the role of authorities on the basis of having had more time with the text. Other individuals will begin to defer to their knowledge and not take the time to seek for themselves. With ambiguity of interpretation, individuals may grow in knowledge and evolve in understanding with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which is the ultimate goal of scripture - spiritual development, rather than blind obedience. In addition,

God may be limited to interacting with the world through human beings that have the gift of perception, and must work with what he/she/it has to work with. This may not be based on a prophet’s personal righteousness as it is often assumed, as God chooses vessels from various backgrounds, in all their human frailties. The qualifications are submission to learning and growing and allowing transformation. Think of there being rules for interfering similar to ghosts having to talk through psychic mediums. God interferes in the world through the medium of the prophet because of his or her ability to hear and willingness to participate. This idea poses an answer to the problem of Theodicy, which asks why an all powerful God allows suffering. Humanity becomes ultimately responsible for alleviating its own suffering by submitting to the promptings of God.

In areas of translation where Joseph Smith is translating a sentence that sounds similar to what he knows is contained in the King James Version, we should expect a higher probability that he will make assumptions and record the sentence exactly as he remembers it in King James. This is human nature, as when hearing things, we naturally perceive what we expect or are familiar with, even when it is often not the case. We frequently assume what a person means before they finish speaking. Critical arguments against the Book of Mormon assume first that for Joseph to have been a prophet and provided a divine translation, it must be absolutely free of error, a requirement not present in any other human discipline. It also defies logic, because if God wished to prove anything without requiring human beings to tap into the Source of truth, the Holy Spirit, he could write it in the sky with his finger for all to read.

We have instances in the record where mistakes occurred and the scribe struck through the text and made a correction as if quickly while receiving dictation. The accounts record that Joseph would pause if he felt that he was not understood and repeat the word or line. We can expect that he would have to be listening for such a spiritual prompt. If there were times that he caught such mistakes, we can assume that because he is human, that there were times when he failed to listen for such promptings, as episodes in his life and later revelations demonstrate. Additional explanations for the corrections would involve Joseph gaining a better picture of what he was translating as he continued reading and obtained the context. Such context would change the interpretation of a word, as often the same root word can be translated several ways depending on the usage in context.

Are there any reasons to doubt the translation in 2 Nephi 5? Yes. 2 Nephi 5:21 reads, “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

The people that Nephi is referring to are descendants of Israelites, who are not white, and are considered to be not Native Americans, but “among the ancestors of the Native Americans,” who are not black. Immediately, we should note that we are not talking about Europeans and Africans. No one looked at Native Americans and thought they were black. Joseph Smith was acquainted with African slaves, who were black, and he knew the difference.

A flint stone is not black. It is a form of quartz that can range from a dark grey to white. Therefore the properties that we are looking for to compare to a flintstone is something other than its color. A flint is used to make tools because it splits apart in layers or flakes. The Lamanites split off from the other group like flint. Secondly, the sin this verse is referring to is “iniquity,” which word is also rendered “inequity,” or “inequality,” which is condemned throughout the Book of Mormon because it striates society, causing class division, like a Flint. Flint is also used as a striking or cutting tool. The Lamanites are repeatedly referred to throughout the book as a tool of providence to scourge and chasten the Nephites. Scriptural language is euphemistic and symbolic rather than literal.

As the Book of Mormon is a translation, one root word will have several derivatives. The same Nephite root can be rendered as skin, covering or garment. Consider that you have skin, and you also take the skin of animals to use as blankets or to wear as clothing. Therefore you are said to “wear skins.” Later when you make garments out of wool or other material, you are already accustomed to saying the word “skin,” which is also a general word for covering for the person’s own bare skin. We have many examples of this in the English language. In Alma 49:6 (Alma 21:155 RLDS), it uses all three forms of the root in a poetic word-form that we 21st Century Americans call a “play on words.”

“Yea, and they had also prepared themselves with shields and with breastplates, and they had also prepared themselves with garments of skins, yeah, very thick garments to cover their nakedness,” with nakedness rendered by an inversion of “to cover.” This would be similar to writing, “With a bow in my hair, I drew an arrow and shot my bow from the bow of the ship and took a bow.”

In alliteration, we use separate words in close proximity that all start with the same letter. In the example in the text, Alma uses the same exact word in close proximity in three different contexts, giving the words different meanings. Plays on words and other poetic forms are common throughout ancient semitic writings. A Nephite reader of the original would have picked up cues on how the word was to be interpreted for that usage. Remember that Alma wrote in Nephite, not English, and wrote for a Nephite audience, and even though he may have known by revelation that one day a people in the far distant future would read it, he cannot be assumed to know much about their language and customs, so he wrote in the manner of his own people just as prophets we familiar with in the bible did. This poetry would be appreciated by Nephites or ancient Jews, but naturally causes confusion to someone like Joseph Smith, who doesn’t know what to look for when translating it.

Many would, and indeed do, object to the idea of errors in translation on the grounds that David Whitmer described the process of Joseph seeing one word at a time on the stone, which would not go away until he had it recorded correctly, but this is not Joseph’s account, but the account of someone who was anxious to assert the perfection of the record, and though it may bear resemblance to the actual translation process, we have no way to know to to what degree. What we do know is that the book emphatically claims human error and that Joseph did change some words in the second edition, reflecting errors in translation.

For his 1840 reprint of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith changed several instances of the word “white” to the word “pure,” suggesting that perhaps all of them should have been rendered this way. In 2 Ne 30:6 (RLDS 12:84), the word “skin” was changed to “garment.” While the the words bear relation to each other and the less appropriate used by accident in a translating and rushed book publication setting, the indicated more correct words lose all racial connotation often implied by the former. After his death, the Utah church changed them back to match the original edition and their understanding of the passages. Some opponents of Joseph Smith and the Restoration like to give the Utah LDS church the final word on the interpretation, but this would lead to false conclusions.

The Utah LDS Church is a contested authority for many reasons, and I give a few for those who need them in order to break the connection to embarrassing and incorrect traditional interpretations. It is only one of several splinter groups of Joseph Smith’s church, and was officially ruled in US court during the Temple Lot Case to not be the legal continuation of the original church, a matter that was heard again by Congress during the Reed Smoot case with a similar conclusion. It can be argued that such was all but admitted by Brigham Young during the Kirtland Temple Suit when he withdrew his case against James J. Strang after reading his Answer and realizing the hopelessness of trying to prove himself the true successor and seeing no profit in being bested by Strang in what would essentially become a debate on public record. Handing over the valuable property to his main rival Strang is nothing short of an admission and a loss.

From the point of view of those who remained members of the original church under James Strang’s presidency, Young and the 9 other apostles who went with him were all legally excommunicated for insurrection and usurping God’s authority. They were determined in US Court to have drastically altered the doctrines of the church, and they did not have a copyright to the Book of Mormon allowing them to print it, and cannot therefore be viewed as authoritative on the interpretation of the text. Nor should their authority be assumed in any other matter taken to affect the entire movement merely because in the twentieth and early part of the twenty-first centuries, their church would become the largest. They did not always comprise the largest group of Mormons, and likely will not always, as projections do not bear this out. The fact that the translator made this correction in a subsequent edition, demonstrates it as the preferred and most authentic word choice, and should alone settle the skin-garment-covering translation issue.

Throughout the book, a running metaphor made by the prophets is “I must rid my garments of the stain of your blood” or “stand with pure garments at the last day.” Examples can be found in: Alma 33:2, Alma 34:36, Alma 13:11, 1 Ne 12:10, Alma 5, 21, Alma 5:27 (see below for full texts). This hails back to a verse in Isaiah 1:18: “Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”

The divinity of the Book of Mormon does not rest on whether God punishes people by making them dark complected, even though that idea, offensive as it may be, may be drawn from an absurdly literal reading of the text. Many things in scripture are written in code so that they give one impression to the general public and another altogether to the spiritually enlightened. Dark complexion does not appear as a punishment, as apart from its utility in certain climates or the entirely arbitrary conditions imposed by selfish people, there is no objective benefit of one skin color over another, thus such a literal change cannot be viewed as a blessing or a curse. But ancient writers could plausibly hold any number of irrational opinions on whatever pretense. Such intertribal polemics and negative associations pervade history, especially when that group broke off and went against their cultural norms or because of conflict and resentments over loss of life might be at the receiving end of biased language, even from an otherwise righteous people. That alone might make any group appear loathsome and undesirable to mix with to another, without an inference that God himself is racist. People’s attitudes do not depend, and frequently are entirely without any objective basis in reality.

2 Nephi 26:33 states that God denies none, black and white, bond and free, male and female, etc., but all are invited to partake of his goodness. So if there are ambiguities leading some to justify interpretations of racial division in the above verses, this verse positively asserts equality in God’s view and practice in much more powerful terms than the bible’s assurance that God is no respecter of persons, which contains the same sentiment. And if the God who inspired the Book of Mormon stands firm for equality, Joseph Smith did not fail to uphold His values as leading an early movement with not only fully integrated congregations, but with ordained black ministers, even former slaves, in authority over them. While this progressive inclusivity was not unique in the American religious scene, it was still a noble example of wisdom, equity and bravery, and combined with Smith’s presidential campaign platform on which he proposed to redeem the slaves from bondage two decades prior to Lincoln likely contributed to Smith’s assassination. As Joseph ordained black saints to the priesthood in his congregations, His true successor James Strang did so also, never for a moment considering the existence of any obstacle on the basis of race.

Without any legal claim to the First Presidency, Brigham Young led a splinter group to Utah, re-baptizing them along the way, reversed Joseph’s ordinations of black men, stripping them of honors bestowed by their prophet in the church they believed in and instituted the policy of discrimination that Mormonism has since been known for and the doctrines offered to justify it. He also is responsible for reversing Joseph's second edition word changes that clarified that the controversial verses were speaking idiomatically of garments rather than literal flesh in order to preserve their doctrines of exclusion. Such misguided interpretations and theological justifications, though abhorrent, may by discernment be appropriately taken as signifying their adherents’ level of spiritual attunement or unity with God and a sign of where the valid authority lies, so as not to waste the silver lining in a sky of gloom. I do not wish to make more of it than this, that the controversy of racial discrimination and the priesthood belongs to the branches descending from Young and not Joseph, and are not anyone else’s burden to bear, and the absolute belief in the supremacy of that institution and all of its traditions to the exclusion of all other sources of light, knowledge and welcome correction is not derived from anything taught by Joseph Smith.

In Jacob Chapter 3 we have an instance in verses 5 and 8 where skins should be replaced with garments. “O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their garments will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.” In verse 9, the same root word appears to be used to refer to actual skin in a rebuke against racism among the Nephites who are falling into corruption and inequality, when he says, “Revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins/garments, neither revile against them because of their filthiness, but ye shall remember your own filthiness, how theirs came because of their fathers,” but this instance likewise works with either understanding.

For one thing, the speaker uses the same word filthiness to refer to both the Nephites and the Lamanites, making it difficult to infer the intention of a racial slur by this word in the Nephite language without even a comparable synonym in our own. Are they unclean in their metaphorical garments because of sin and the failure to wash them in Christ’s blood because their fathers led them astray and did not teach them, or does this reference refer to the melanin in their skin or the literally unwashed animal skins they wear. Nephites discriminating against Lamanites for being mixed blood and having darker skin and features should not be wholly surprising if that is what one interprets here, but it should regardless not be taken as a fore drawn conclusion, nor a view God shares if they did, as scripture teaches us as much from the mistakes of God’s people as from their righteous acts. It should be noted that the book does not specifically mention other natives in the land, but their presence may be inferred due to the sudden and inexplicable increase in the Lamanite population, that they intermarried with natives where Nephites maintained what they considered ethnic purity. Jacob in this chapter berates the Nephites for their pride in materiality, in building a high society marked by fine clothing and inequality of the rich and poor, and looking down on Lamanites because they did not bathe as frequently and wore simple loincloths. Jacob assures them that this has no bearing on their worthiness. Even though the Lamanites had left the true faith they had brought over from Israel, they were in better shape at this time than the Nephites who were not living by theirs, notwithstanding their pretentious observances.

Further Examples of Idiom in the Book of Mormon to refer to one’s standing before God:

ULDS Alma 24:12-15 (RLDS Alma 14:34-40) 12 Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren. 13 Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins. 15 Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.

In Alma, 24, though he refers to getting their physical swords of battle stained in the blood of their foes, the author switches back and forth to using the sword as a metaphor for their souls, providing the “swords” spotless at the last day. “Brightness” means clean, pure and holy.

1 Nephi 12:10 And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.

Alma 5:21 I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins. 22 And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you? 23 Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness? 24 Behold, my brethren, do ye suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white? 27 Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins?

As can be seen the culture and religious context of the Book of Mormon writers use the covering of skins or garments as symbolic of their worthiness, or the soul, and from extended literary sources, their priesthood, which was also an inherent and essential component of their covenant as God’s people and indicative of their standing in the next life’s Kingdom of God, and they held a preoccupation with concepts of staining and cleansing, from which their concept of the atonement of Christ derived. From either the writer or the translator, the word “skin” could as easily have appeared in the text in place of “garment,” referring to the skins that clothes are made of, and would have meant the same to a reader familiar with their ancient cultural context. “That your skins have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ.” Blood does not in reality make anything white, not garments, not swords, and not human skin, so why the literalist reading that assumes we are speaking of ethnicity in any of these passages? Upon a more thorough examination it is not mandated from the text itself, but from the preoccupation of modern society in the aftermath of some of the most barbaric and cruel practices being implemented in full scale, and with some of the most vicious of justifications meant to indoctrinate minds into denying basic humanity. You may rightly wonder, as I have, why the Lord’s inspired writers were not given the foresight to anticipate modern evils and choose a metaphor that could not be so hurtfully misconstrued. While I can’t answer absolutely, other than pointing out the assumptions the question makes about what is and is not subject to prophetic foreknowledge, I was led to admit the reality that all metaphors are subject to being misconstrued, and the history of Bible interpretation and resulting conflict proves that all scriptures can be misconstrued as well, and if there is a God, the ambiguity must be part of His plan, possibly to create room for personal growth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Considering the prevalence of horrendous crime and suffering prevalent in our world, such as should make us ever the more eternally compassionate for all our fellow beings, the possibility that this ambiguity was allowed as a snare for the wicked to humble them before the judgment bar having revealed the corruption in their hearts is not without plausibility.

While we cannot infer that authors over 2000 years ago should be aware of what will be sensitive topics in our age. The lack of such sensitivity is evidence of its ancient date as even throughout the world today there are myriad interactions between people of all nations, kindreds, tongues and people who speak to and about each other in the context of racial differences, neither intending nor taking offense by it common here, for few of which have the sensitivity and the rawness that lingers here in the united states; and well we should, for European settlers had one of the largest and most pervasive and harsh systems of slavery, the longest running and the most cruelly supported with rhetoric, requiring an awful bloody war of rebellion to pry from its grasp of control. It was replaced with a century of segregation accompanied by an illegal and unchecked reign of terror against a people seeking the basic necessities and dignities of life, and after the presumed equality is belatedly enforced, the ways of oppression and systemic violence are perpetuated openly, yet denied by their fellow citizens. It is entirely fitting that our preoccupation with these issues, as a consequence of unparalleled societal evil, is unmatched in all history and in all the world. Thus while we cannot celebrate outdated metaphors as impossible to our minds to overlook as foreign words that resemble profanities, we can look on them with academic maturity without giving in to projecting upon ancient people of another time, culture, language and human experience the consequences of our own works of evil, while simultaneously supporting in Christian love those among us whose traumas are triggered by negative associations, seeing emotions as valid and genuine.

Alma 13:11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb. 12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

In this section, Alma writes of the garments being sanctified of the Spirit being Pure, White and Spotless and it is the sin which is looked upon with abhorrence, giving us a further key that the filthiness spoken of the Lamanites in previous verses and similar context was not their skin color, as again they were of the same ethnic group as the Nephites, but unlike most of the world which formes social identity in connection with blood relation, we are speaking of a “peculiar people,” whose social identity was primarily a covenant with God and each other.

Alma 34:36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.

Let’s read the chapter as it might have been translated with alternate derivatives.

2 Nephi 5:

20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their inequality. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were pure, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be beguiling unto my people the Lord God did cause a covering of darkness to come upon them. 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome/abhorrent unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. 24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

To further support this reading, we turn to the Joseph Smith Translation Genesis 9:29-30 - “And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him and he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant, and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men.”

We see a cursed one being known by a veil of darkness. This part is Joseph Smith’s addition to the text of Genesis and is a direct parallel to the verse in 2 Nephi 2:21, which does not carry the implication that we are speaking of race or skin color. The Joseph Smith Translation portion of Genesis is the key to interpreting the meaning of the Book of Mormon text. We interpret metaphorically rich ancient text as being about race only when we read it with a 21st Century lens.

Of concern to the writer is the difference between the two peoples in procuring food. The Nephites were planters and harvesters, the Lamanites were meat eaters. This is the plausible reason why the writer viewed them as idle and loathsome. Agriculture requires a greater amount of toil and patience to produce food than hunting and gathering. It requires systemization and technology, and if more sophisticated. Remember that the Nephites and Lamanites are cousins, not two different races.

The Mark of the Lamanites?

Alma chapter 3 (ULDS) describes the Amlicites rebelling against the Nephites and joining the Lamanites to become Lamanites. It states three times that they were cursed of God, like the Lamanites, that they marked themselves knowing that it fulfilled the curse of God and didn’t care and that the mark was a mark of red upon their foreheads. It was not a full body mark, and it was not a literal skin of blackness. Alma 3:4 also states that this was “after the manner of the Lamanites” or the same mark, and that it was to distinguish themselves from the Nephites. Therefore, the Lord placing a mark on them is actually more subtle, being that the Lord caused them to desire to distinguish themselves by a form of body modification or tattoo on their foreheads, making them easily distinguishable to Nephites, accomplishing the Lord’s desire to keep them separate from Nephites so that they don’t corrupt them with their ways. However, anyone who repented was accepted among the Nephites and the mark was removed. Thereafter, they were called Nephites. It says the curse was lifted also. Elaborating on verse 9, verse 10 explains that “mingling seed” indicates “being led away by Lamanites” rather than simply having children with them. It means actually moving among them, raising one’s children and adopting their ways, but most importantly breaking or trading one's own societal covenant for another, which for ancient Israelites would be viewed with abhorrence.

This rationale makes far more sense, even in 1830, when nobody thought that people could become black or white simply by sinning or repenting.

Conclusion of Book of Mormon Race Theories

The reader can decide if certain parts of the Book of Mormon are objectionable. Certainly, the bible also has many, as do the Qur’an and the Book of Adam and Eve, demonstrating the Book of Mormon’s authenticity as an ancient Semitic work. While the passagest bring to mind a context informed by 19th century America, the passages themselves do not fit in or make sense in this context, but are actually the more comically or uncomfortably out of place there. 

If we refrain from a foregone conclusion about Joseph Smith being a false prophet, we see that these passages are consistent with a translated sacred book of ancient date, we can then look at the verses in question for the most likely possible interpretation. This would be the methodology for interpreting a work whose authenticity was not in question. Individuals who derive a racist interpretation draw it from the racism they bring to the text, as Paul says that all things seem pure unto the pure, while all things seem corrupt unto the corrupt. But those uncontrollably triggered by the passages are innocent victims of past social trauma from which scars have yet to heal, and should be loved, honored and respected as such, and these issues whether derived from mistake or error or inconvenient coincidence, should be handled with sensitivity and care as a potential cause of real distress. 

See Evidences of the Book of Mormon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV8QN7bIeEE&t=1989s

Notes: compare similar passages in Isaiah, the Koran, and the Book of Adam and Eve (Conflict with Satan) for passages using the idiom of dark skin, as well as later revelations in the Restoration. 

Notes: see Mormon Yeshiva Article on Racism in the Book of Mormon:

https://mormonyeshiva.blogspot.com/2018/01/are-you-white-and-delightsome.html?fbclid=IwAR2w3HtUwp67DMhIgLHeAJpqkN85pTi1CSBbaac1DlZj07U2uitv07zEnr8&m=1

2 Enoch 6 And those men took me and led me up onto the second heaven, and showed me darkness, greater than earthly darkness, and there I saw prisoners hanging, watched, awaiting the great and boundless judgment.

7 And these angels (spirits) were dark-looking,[ Spiritual darkness in appearance. See Adam 1:2-3, ULDS 2 Nephi 5:21 / RLDS 4 Nephi 33-35.] more than earthly darkness, and incessantly making weeping through all hours.

Adam 1:2 And to the north of the garden there is a sea of water, clear and pure to the taste, unlike anything else; so that, through the clearness thereof, one may look into the depths of the earth.

3 And when a man washes himself in it, he becomes clean of the cleanness thereof, and white of its whiteness—even if he were dark.

“My Father sends Michael and the other angels and they place a mark upon the foreheads of the sinners. That mark is as black as a sack. When that sign appears, immediately my Father sends his angels and they separate them, a father from his son, a son from the hand of his father, a mother being taken from the hand of her daughter, a daughter being taken from the hand of her mother, a brother from his brother, a wife from her husband. Very single rank being separated one from the other. All the sinners stand on the left hand of the true judge, the right will stand on his right hand.” - Investiture of the Archangel Michael 4:7-9

With these verified, authentic ancient semitic references to skins of blackness, marks of blackness, etc, it becomes less tenable to isolate any of these works for denunciation or to insist upon a literal reading of the text, particularly that of the idiom rich Book of Mormon. Subsequent conclusions that it MUST mean what it says literally, that it MUST refer to race and ethnicity as humans currently understand it, and that the book therefore must be a nineteenth century hoax that must be interpreted in a nineteenth century language language context, and is thus ungodly, is unjustified wishful thinking and untenable on reflection. 

In fact, the appearance of rather strange concepts that otherwise stand out from the teachings of Joseph Smith or the early Mormon movement on the whole are rather indicators of authenticity. If believers were to rather see the book as an authentic revelation from God, obtained as the book suggests by godly methods of spiritual discernment (something never claimed to be without error or easily interpreted) rather than the wisdom of the world, which God says is foolishness, it would stand then to not look at these questions as ones related to whether the book should be taken seriously, but rather what the text could mean. If we take cues as to meaning from these other ancient sources, we come to conclusions that lead away from both the race issue and literal interpretations altogether.

RESPONSIBLE MINISTRY, BENEFICIAL TRUTH

No one values what they are not ready for. If you doubt it, deliver ten trucks of free ice cream to the lawn of an ice cream shop owner with no extra space in the freezer. They absolutely value the amount and specific types of the ice cream they ordered, which is the ice cream they are low on and need to have on hand to sell, as they value owning a well stocked and efficient business with a good reputation, and they value profit they earn by having them, and if their order is delayed, they will be distressed as they see dissatisfied customers leave without spending money on what they wanted. But multiplying the amount of the same thing they value in a specific quantity and type and the wrong timing does not multiply the value of it; in fact, apart from adding them no resale value at all, several tons of melted cream will also destroy the value of their lawn and property, not to mention rob them of the value of their own time in dealing with the huge non-blessing that it is. This principle applies to the arrival of the perfect romantic partner when you are not ready, say when you are still struggling with making a failing marriage work and the added complication multiplies the legal costs and emotional distress by multiplying the challenges of navigating the divorce while starting the new relationship on rocky ground instead of starting it one year later after a mature and responsible conclusion to the first marriage, arrived at on its own merits and terms. It can even apply to having unexpected money show up out of the blue, say for instance showing up in December where it puts you into a higher tax bracket while suddenly robbing you of huge subsidies you were depending on qualifying for, whereas if the money arrived in January, you could plan the whole year accordingly. In some cases the subsidies people have lost amounted to more than the unplanned money they received, and as such the money was a curse and not a blessing. This principle also applies to knowledge, because knowledge you are not ready to accept and use is not a blessing, and may be a curse too. Knowledge of good and evil, if insufficient to produce conviction to overcome character deficiencies, may only serve to increase one’s accountability for bad choices, whereas the same knowledge dispensed in measured quantities and the right timing would be of inestimable worth. If the range of our gaze is only to the extent of identifying right and wrong, truth and untruth, and opportunities to speak it and not penetrating into the lives and circumstances of those we attempt to thrust it upon, then we are self absorbed, seeking only our own blessing and not theirs, serving ourselves and not them, and certainly not God. And if we think that shortsighted efforts that are not calculated to benefit others can ever bless us, then we have received the wrong kinds of knowledge, or at the wrong times, in the wrong proportions or in the wrong order, and in that wrong order have formed our values.

False Christians and the Fear Mongering Gospel of Bigotry

 

This is a response to a Christian sermon preaching on the subtleties of modern day Babylon and how enticing Paganism, including Atheism and Secular Humanism, is to our youth because it emphasizes trust in self and self identity and personal understanding over God. How fear of speaking out and hurting feelings and being called a bigot silences Christians from declaring the Ultimate Truth, which gets lost in a subjective sea of personal truths. The Preacher denounced how the world accepts all religions, like Hinduism and Buddhism in its pursuit of “tolerance.” He began by saying it was God who defined marriage as one man and one woman.

How seductive it is to make apostate Christians feel victimized while emboldening them to vilify everyone who sees things differently. Are you addressing the doctrines that have been added to the faith because of tradition that are not found in the Law of God? The Torah is an affirmatively stated legal code, with thou shalt and thou shalt not removing ambiguity. Thou shalt only marry one wife is not found, and it cannot merely be inferred because God made Adam and Eve, a mere human interpretation that should not be enforced in place of the Law of God. The Torah allows polygamy, which was practiced in both Old and New Testament times, and it is expressly commanded in the case a man’s brother dies without an heir. Twisting the scriptures to imply one man, one woman is God’s definition of marriage is placing your own wisdom above God.

God’s people were always a minority living in a pagan world, a world of promise, since Peter’s vision meant that the pagan Gentiles were no longer to be viewed as unclean, but were to be preached to and invited to make a covenant with God. You have it right that we do not need to live in a time of comfort and peace where the Law of God rules. That is not why we are sent here, but we are sent to a world where Satan rules so that we can be tried and tested and have opportunities to grow through trials and service. You think Paganism is attractive? God’s good news is attractive and inspiring, but because it became corrupted by the doctrines of men, which “have a form of Godliness, but deny the power thereof,” it’s watered down version has put people off and made anything look like a better alternative.

Control your temptation to include your personal biases in your faith and then police your neighbors instead of teaching and inspiring. In other words, humble yourself and admit you do not know all things, as this is only a means of worshiping yourself or your interpretation of God under the name of God. Christians use threats and guilt to shame people into compliance. Jesus, on the other hand, railed only against the religious authorities that imposed their own interpretations on people, and he told those whom he served to go and sin no more without telling them everything they needed to repent of, leaving them to study Torah and figure it out for themselves with the Holy Spirit, to “work out their own salvation with fear and trembling,” or in another translation, with both reverence and anxiousness, which is infinitely more powerful than being told what to do and what not to do by mortals, well-intentioned as they may be.

Jesus did not even announce that he was the Son of God to everyone, but he waited for Peter to discover it by revelation, and said he was blessed because the information came from God and not man. God is power, not force. He inspires change, but He does not remove people’s agency. He never said to go infiltrate the government and force everyone to live by THE truth. Everyone has the word of God, but He said he would send people the Holy Spirit to “teach them the truth of all things.” He said “My sheep hear my voice.” If they are not his sheep, what do they need to hear his voice for? This is why he spoke in parable, so that those with ears to hear may hear, in other words, when the spirit teaches them. He said he came not to condemn, but to save.

The proud who have adopted a false Christianity as a means to serve their moral vanity leave nothing to the imagination. As the unprofitable servants we are, we need to inspire and share possibility and have faith that God the Spirit will work a change in people’s hearts, not us, not our political conniving. We are supposed to believe and have faith and not fear, and to serve and that is all.

A world of sin is a world of opportunity to serve and help find lost sheep. People are just mad because being outnumbered isn’t comfortable, but we aren’t here to be comfortable, for our kingdom is not of this world. Christians are mad because they think our rights are being violated. We have no rights but to serve and suffer in the name of God and return to him with nothing in our pockets, to hear him say “Well done thou good and faithful servant,” and you can do that just fine in the fiery furnace where they throw you, and say as you go, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Christianity that does not follow the example of Christ is just another form of paganism, which is why it cannot compete with other forms of paganism. In fact it is worse, because it is harder than ever to be inspired by the true God with so many impostors being called the names of God and Jesus by people who never heard Him and were never called by Him and will be cast off for working inequity, jealous because many of those they deemed sinners will be called in to the feast to sit in seats that were originally offered to them. 

The Parable of the Embezzler, Luke 16

 

Firstly, in Jesus’s parables, the master is not always himself, but he compares and contrasts. For instance in the parable of the unjust judge, he is saying if the unjust judge will finally hear the poor widow and reluctantly give her justice, how much more shall God, who is actually just? In the parable of the Talents, like the Parable of the Unjust Steward, wisdom is respected by the unjust master and his unjust servant, but also by God, and should be by His servants. Just because your service is for the almighty, doesn’t mean your service should be bad. Jesus did not say the master is God, but like God, he is a master, and like the unjust steward, we are at best unprofitable servants, relying on our master’s good graces. This is all the more reason that we should be wise and shrewd.

Jesus laments that the wicked people are more active in achieving their goals than are the righteous, and as a result, the wicked rule the world and the righteous are at their mercy, and God’s kingdom suffers. God wants to oversee workers, creators, doers, not to be the welfare office administrator. Christ never said that the embezzler did a good thing, only that he was clever and shrewd, and that the master respected that because he is the same way. He never said that the master took him back, or that he complimented him as soon as his further embezzlement was discovered. In fact, it probably took a while to go over the books and discover it. Jesus most likely intended in his telling of the story that we understand that he dismisses the steward and thought he would face great hardship, but some time later caught up with him after he had been able to make use of the help of his business associates and merely commended that he did alright for himself. In other words, the unjust master acknowledged that his former manager was in the club of successfully corrupt business people, which is the perpetual habitation referenced.

Again, this is all in the comment of Jesus lamenting that the children of light are not as shrewd or worldly wise as the people of the world. Jesus also said he wants us to be as wise as serpents, but as harmless as doves, so if we take this parable to mean that he condones treachery, dishonesty or any other violations of the Torah, we are gravely mistaken. He is saying that although shrewdness is used by the wicked, it is not mutually exclusive of righteousness. The serpent is associated with the devil, so we should be just as wise as the devils, but as harmless as the angels or the Holy Spirit, who is associated with the dove.

R. C. Sproul, in preaching this topic, points out that while the Torah forbids usury or high interest, wicked businessmen would get around this by adding what would be interest to the sale price, even up to doubling the fair market value. Of course this only fools themselves into false security as this cannot excuse them with God, who sees right through the scheme and charges them with violating the Torah anyway, and even more tragically since they do not recognize their need to atone for it. As this was common, Sproul suggests that it was likely the case with the business the unjust steward managed, making his master also an unjust master, like he unjust judge. Again, not a direct stand-in for the Lord, as people are wont to assume.

Just as in the parable of the talents, as stewards of God, all our time, talents, abilities, resources and money belong to the Lord, and we own nothing, not the earth we stand on or the feet we stand with. When we pair this with Jesus’s words to the rich young man, we come away with a more practical application of his words for modern times. Since selling all that we have and giving it to the poor will not put a dent in the world’s poverty, but merely add one more poor person that needs to be cared for, it is better to live as though you are poor without actually becoming impoverished and needy, by not squandering anything on excess material possessions or luxury, but counting all you have as God’s which he has entrusted you with to further his kingdom and purposes.

This means serving, pooling your resources with others to create systems of aid and relief, to promote change for the better and benefit of the poor. This is being shrewd for our master. Like a man who was getting old without any heirs and sold his home to a young wealthy man for a very good deal on the terms that he would continue to reside there until his death and receive all the care that he should need. Or like the man who sold his business, but stayed on to manage it, we sell off our ownership of anything we think we own in this world for the pearl of great price, the knowledge of our salvation and a reward in heaven. We sell it to God, but we stay on to manage the assets as stewards, and if we are faithful stewards, rather than the unfaithful one who used his masters wealth and resources and business for himself and was fired, we will not be fired if we use his resources in our stewardship for his purposes, the benefit of the poor in both body and spirit. But unlike the unjust servant, whose perpetual habitation was with the wicked, ours will be with the just master.

Jesus then tells us to associate ourselves with the mammon of unrighteousness so that we can earn their respect. The only way to be respected by the wicked is to be too shrewd to be used and abused by them. Having earned their respect, we may be able to share with them salvation through Jesus Christ, so that by the time we enter into our eternal reward in heaven, they may greet us there.

He further adds to this parable the caution, that you cannot serve God and Mammon, so it will do no good to do this halfheartedly, or make a pretense to doing this but not actually doing it and indulging our pleasures with what is actually the Lord’s. In the unfortunate case that we cannot trust ourselves, just as it is better to pluck out your eye and be saved with one eye than to have two eyes in hell, it would be better to actually give away your wealth if it is too great a stumbling block and damns you to hell, and enter into heaven poor to become truly rich. You can serve God by your stewardship of mammon in this life, but if you serve mammon, whether it is the associations to wealthy people, the obtaining of wealth or the indulging in pleasure, if your heart is to it, you are no servant of God and will in fact despise him and be cast out.

Jesus’s words to the rich man, although they contain lessons for us like all this words and deeds, were also specifically instructions to this man who had the chance to become a disciple of the Lord and follow him in his ministry. We today have a much different global environment and many systems that we can use and work to reform to provide for the poor on a larger scale. We can hear him prompt us, “Take all your money you would have spent on things you do not need and give to the poor,” or in other words, since becoming a debt slave yourself won’t help the poor and all your money won’t put a dent in their poverty, use your money as a wise steward to both support your life so that you are not a burden on any, and give your time to the poor to bring them into the Kingdom of God, and work to better the world so that the larger scale means to provide for many the needs of the body will enable them the peace and security to fully hear the call to receive the needs of the spirit.

DON’T JUST FOLLOW THE PROPHET; AN EXEGESIS OF 1 KINGS 13

 DON’T JUST FOLLOW THE PROPHET; AN EXEGESIS OF 1 KINGS 13

 

The question was asked Alexei, what is the lesson of 1 kings 13? Is it that false prophets will get you killed? The following is his response, and it is suggested to read 1 Kings 13 and 14 before proceeding and ponder the meaning before taking this interpretation to Yahavah.

 

ALEXEI: The chapter in question did not say that any of them were false prophets.

INQUIRER: Yes it does. Well, a lying prophet.

ANSWER: Joseph Smith stated that "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such." The lesson in this chapter is obedience to God and not man, and the messengers of the Lord are no exception. Where much is given, much is required. We should test everything the prophets say to make sure that it comes from the Lord, and to make sure that we understand correctly.  The parenthetical (in which it says that the Old Prophet lied) may be a later comment added into the text for clarity by a well meaning, but errant scribe. The Old Prophet said that the Lord told him to bring the Man of God home and feed him, and he may not have been lying at all. But the Man of God had already been given other instructions directly from the Lord and should not have departed from them. Had he tested what the prophet said to him, he would not have failed. This passage is cited by some theologians as further proof of the Man of God’s testimony since YHVY standing by every word that he said the Man of God, even making him pay with his life for departing from it, it is further proof that every other part of his prophecy would come to pass.

The prophets are only messengers, and should not speak of themselves. They hold no special rank or privilege with God that would give them such license, and whenever he establishes his church and kingdom and calls them to ruling authority, in other words, an actual position of authority, this is only to administrate according to the Torah and still does not grant them exceptions from obedience. In fact, they suffer the greatest penalties for violation, often paying with their lives. This is a great chapter for Utah Mormons who say, "Follow the prophet; God will never allow him to lead the people astray."

Verse 20 says, “While they were sitting at the table, the word of the Lord came to the old prophet who had brought him back.” The text only calls him the old prophet, not the false prophet, and he was the very one who cried out against the Man of God. This means he was a true prophet, despite what followed. Additionally, if God had not sent him, how did he find the Man of God on the road? And why did he feel the need to go and bring him home and feed him, lie to him and get him killed unless it was all a test from God? If he had lied, as the parenthetical says, why did he escape any punishment? We see how he felt about it afterwards, even though he was only the messenger. He buried the man of God in his own tomb and asked his sons to be buried beside him, and affirmed that the Man of God’s prophecy will come true. As another prophet, he thought, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” And as prophets, priests, teachers and disciples today, we should think the same.

The Man of God had traveled from Judah to Bethel. The "Old Prophet," for lack of a name in the text, must have lived someplace close by in order to hear the story and still be able to saddle a donkey and find him on the road. We should wonder why neither man is named in the text. Surely they had names, and since their tomb was known 300 years later, surely their names were known to somebody. The very next chapter begins with the king sending his wife to the prophet Ahijah in Shiloh. Shiloh is 10 miles from Bethel, part of a day's journey by donkey. Could they be the same prophet? Did an ancient scribe hide that fact by removing the name in the previous chapter due to the man of God trusting his words leading him to sin, costing his life, thinking that lying to another prophet would make the Old Prophet look false?

We must also ask, Does God speak through false prophets or liars? The second word of the Lord through the Old Prophet came true and the Man of God died as he prophesied. The Lord God did not sin by commanding the old Prophet to invite the man of God home and feed him and the old Prophet did not sin if he only repeated the words. The words were a test to see if the Man of God would obey what he heard from God himself or what he was told that God had said from another prophet, and he failed to obey and was punished. The Old Prophet was not punished because he did obey, but he had compassion and grieved for his fellow prophet.

The Man of God's prophecy was not fulfilled completely for 300 years until Josiah destroyed the shrine, leaving only the tomb of the two prophets. This book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is believed to have been compiled in the seventh century BC, with a supplement added later in the sixth, when a redaction may have taken place. Is this when the names of the prophets were removed by those who did not fully understand the passages and were uncomfortable with the implications of sin or entrapment by either God or his servant? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Kings_13.

This may feel like entrapment, and indeed it would be for any non-All Knowing, All just God, but since God has the authority to test his servants and the ability to recompense with an eternal reward, such as test falls under his purview. It is hardly unfair, for having paid with his life, there is no indication that the Man of God did not receive an eternal reward in Heaven. For evidence we look to the final revelation of Joseph Smith appointing James J. Strang as his successor, in which the Lord tells Joseph that he has sinned and his punishment is very bitter, in which he must offer up his life, but his reward is magnificent in an eternal world where the bands of the oppressor fall off.

It seems like a harsh test, because why shouldn’t the Man of God trust the Old Prophet? Is it inconceivable that the old Prophet had been given a new commandment for the Man of God? Again the harshness is related to the position of trust given to the Man of God. The lesson of the chapter is obedience and discernment. If the man of God had taken the new revelation to the Lord, he may have fulfilled enough of righteousness to be allowed to return and eat with the old Prophet, but this only God could to confirm to him. If he went the extra step and asked, and got no answer at all, he should be obedient to the former commandment he received. God tests his servants to prove their faithfulness, and all his blessings are predicated on obedience. The Lord made of his servant an object lesson for us, and his servant is in His hands.

In Psalm 146:3, we read: Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. In Jeremiah 17:5-9, we read: Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord; For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is, for he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

QUESTION: But Peter was told to kill and eat, which differed from prior law. Why is God so difficult to obey? We have the Book of the Law, but what part of it survives the New Covenant in Christ's blood?

ANSWER: In Matthew 5: 17-20, we read the Savior’s profession: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish [do away with, set aside or abrogate] them but to fulfill them [completely obey them]. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear [as long as the earth stands and there are mortals to comprehend the Torah], not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone [from this day as long as the earth stand, not from this day until three years when I am resurrected] who sets aside one of the least of these commands, and teaches others accordingly, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Even modern pharisees or church leaders and pastors are notorious for setting aside any commandments they personally do not wish to obey and claiming this is part of what Christ did away with, while vehemently emphasizing any commandment or interpretation of a commandment they have no natural inclination to break, thus accentuating their righteousness.

QUESTION: So what of grace and circumcision?

ANSWER: Grace is not permission to break commandments. Circumcision is of the heart. The scriptures say to be circumcised of heart, and this shall always be in effect. Peter did not receive a revelation that gives license to break the Law. He received a vision with symbolic imagery. Various foods represent different cultures, because every culture has different food practices, and people  consider other people's foods foreign, and sometimes strange or even taboo. In Peter's day,  Jews would not allow themselves to touch non-Jews because they were considered unclean. Peter's vision taught him to no longer see Gentiles as unclean because they are being sanctified and brought under the covenant.

"On the other hand, both the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the United Church of God argue that Peter's statement in Acts 10:28 indicates that the divine disclosure reflected only a teaching about people, and not one about food. The United Church of God argues that this is an "often-misunderstood section of the Bible", and that "the puzzling vision could not be annulling God's instructions." As such, Adventists and followers of the UCG traditionally observe the Old Testament dietary restrictions, which, like the still upheld Jewish dietary laws, forbid the consumption of pork, shellfish (including shrimps and lobsters), any carnivores, any herbivores that are not ruminants, and any ruminants that do not have split hooves, among others. Peter's triple refusal described in Acts 10:16 echoes the denial of Peter described in the Synoptic Gospels."

This would be a good example of the written Law from God through Moses telling us one thing, and the traditions of various churches telling us another. Who are we to believe, God or church leaders who tell us we no longer need to heed portions of the Law? Considering what happened to the Man of God who trusted the prophet over God himself, we should be careful of how we discern these matters.

QUESTION: Is the book of the law only for Israelites?

ANSWER: The Law is exists from all eternity to all eternity. It is for every child of God, because it is the eternal principle in which God abides. Those who covenant to be the children of God and live by his Law become Israelites.

QUESTION: But are we to keep the sabbath and stone bad children?

ANSWER: Look to Jesus's life and teachings to interpret the Law. We need to get back to Jesus, for He is the cornerstone of our faith.

I have said many times, so I do not know if you have not understood. The Old Testament was corrupted prior to the time of Christ, so there are false commandments recorded there. Jeremiah 8:8 says the scribes dealt treacherously with it. It is like the True Law is written in blue and the lies of Satan are written in red. Christ is the red lens that allows us to see the blue ink when it is held over the text. His life and his teachings are the lens through which to see the truth of the Torah. If it is not ratified by him, or aligned with his life and teachings, it is most likely a corruption. The book says to stone sinners, but Christ taught by his actions to forgive them, therefore the True Law that Moses received from the pre-mortal Christ, Yahavah, did not say to stone them, which means that was an addition from the scribes who were inspired by Satan.

“The letter of the Law kills, but the Spirit of the Law gives life.” To adhere to and trust the letter of the law as it was handed down to us is to trust the same church leaders who tell us how to interpret it and which portions to obey and which to disregard. It is nonetheless leaning on the arm of flesh. The only way to pass the test that the Man of God failed is to take both the scripture texts and the traditions and interpretations of men and study them in your mind and in your heart, diligently compare them with the acts and sayings of Christ, who is God, and ask God the Father in faith for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of all things. If you listen to the devil or to your ego and carnal desires, it is just as much leaning on the arm of flesh and disobeying God as it is to follow and obey church leaders who do the same, even if the tradition goes a thousand years back to the first leaders who did the same; so be sure to be sincere and wait on God for the answer. Some will speak truth to you by the power of the Holy Spirit, and some will speak falsely by the power of the devil, but the way to discern is the same and it is plain. As we saw in the story of the Man of God and the Old Prophet, the enticing notwithstanding, we will all be accountable for our disobedience. Jesus said of the errant church leaders of his day that the blind lead the blind into the pit. Many who say "Lord, Lord, we did many mighty works in your name" will be cast off by Jesus who will say, "I never recognized you. Depart from me, you workers of inequity."

Joseph Smith said, “Many of the things we think of as sin are not sin; I have come to break down superstition, and I will break it down,” but he did not write us out a list of what is and is not sin, nor should we, for then we would lean on the arm of flesh. Instead, after revealing all the revelations and the Book of Mormon and teaching Moroni’s charge, to go to the Lord yourself to obtain the answer, having removed the training wheels of scriptural interpretation and commandments, we are now responsible for the truth we receive. May we empty our vessel so that He may fill us. Amen. 

BLOOD ATONEMENT: The Views of Brigham Young and His Colleagues

 

BLOOD ATONEMENT: The Views of Brigham Young and His Colleagues

  February 7, 1852 - Governor Brigham Young address before Utah Territory assembly, about slavery: 

Let me consent to day to mingle my seed with the seed of Cane. It would bring the same curse upon me as it would upon any man. And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his children. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal)

 

An address delivered by Young in the Tabernacle, March 27, 1853:

 

I will tell you a dream that I had last night. I dreamed that I was in the midst of a people who were dressed in rags and tatters, they had turbans upon their heads, and these were also hanging in tatters. The rags were of many colors, and when the people moved, they were all in motion. Their object in this appeared to be, to attract attention. Said they to me, "We are Mormons, brother Brigham." "No you are not," I replied. "But we have been, said they, and they began to jump, and caper about, and dance, and their rags of many colors were all in motion, to attract the attention of the people. I said, "You are no Saints, you are a disgrace to them." Said they, "We have been Mormons." By and bye, along came some mobocrats, and they greeted them with, "How do you do, sir, I am happy to see you."  They kept on that way for an hour. I felt ashamed of them, for they were in my eyes a disgrace to "Mormonism." Then I saw two ruffians, whom I knew to be mobbers and murderers, and they crept into a bed, where one of my wives and children were. I said, "You that call yourselves brethren, tell me, is this the fashion among you?" They said, "O, they are good men, they are gentlemen." With that, I took my large bowie knife, that I used to wear in a bosom pin in Nauvoo, and cut one of their throats from ear to ear, saying, "Go to hell across lots." The other one said, "You dare not serve me so." I instantly sprang at him, seizing him by the hair of the head, and, bringing him down, cut his throat, and sent him after his comrade; then told them both, if they would behave themselves they should yet live, but if they did not, I would un-joint their necks. At this I awoke.

I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will un-sheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.] Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. [Voices generally, "go it, go it."] If you say it is right raise your hands. [All hands up] Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work. (Journal; of Discourses, Vol. I, p. 83)

 

Discourse by Young, delivered in the Tabernacle, March 16, 1856:

 

I mention this to inform the people, that they may understand what they should do with regard to the law of God, and the transgression thereof. ...

You say, "That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God. Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. ...

There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out; your own blood must atone for it.  (Journal of Discourses, Vol. III, p. 247)

 

Discourse by Young, delivered in the Tabernacle, February 8, 1857:

 

And I will say that the time will come, and is now nigh at hand, when those who profess our faith, if they are guilty of what some of this people are guilty of, will find the axe laid at the root of the tree, and they will be hewn down. What has been must be again, for the Lord is coming to restore all things. The time has been in Israel under the law of God, the celestial law, or that which pertains to the celestial law, for it is one of the laws of that kingdom where our Father dwells, that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life....

Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellence of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, 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?

"That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman go love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing; his language is left as it is for those go read who have the Spirit go discern between truth and error; it was so left for those who can discern the things of God. Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a man in his wickedness.

"I could refer you go 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, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up - conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have 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 forbid 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 neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary go 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." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, pp. 219-220)

 

Discourse by Young in the Tabernacle, May 8, 1853:

 

"If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity. That is what I expect I shall do, though never, in the days of my life, have I hurt a man with the palm of my hand. I never have hurt any person any other way except with this unruly member, my tongue. Notwithstanding this, if I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man go do, to put a stop go that abominable practice in the midst of the people." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. I, pp. 108-9)

 

Discourse by Young in the Bowery, September 21, 1856:

 

"I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine but do not understand it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, pp. 53-4. Also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

"I preached on the condition of the Camp of Israel ... and warned those who lied and stole and followed Israel that they would have their heads cut off, for that was the law of God and it should be executed." (Manuscript History of Brigham Young, December 20, 1846)

"We investigated several orders purporting to be drawn by J. Allen, Lieut. Col., signed by James Pollick; which I requested should be burned. I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing and counterfeiting their throats should be cut." (Manuscript History of Brigham Young, December 20, 1846)

"... At the same time my feelings are these - the best way to sanctify ourselves, and please God our heavenly Father in these days, is to rid ourselves of every thief; and sanctify the people from every vile character. I believe it is right; it is the law and practice of our neighboring state to put the same thing in execution upon men who violate the law, and trample upon the sacred rights of others. It would have a tendency to place a terror on those who leave these parts, that may prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or shot down before the public. Let us clear up the horizon around us; and then, like the atmosphere after the thunder storm has spent its fury in the tops of the mountains, becomes purified; and a calm sun-shine pervades the whole. I believe it to be pleasing in the sight of heaven to sanctify ourselves and put those things away from our midst." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. I, p. 73)

 

 

 "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 110)

 

Heber C. Kimball on BLOOD ATONEMENT

 

Heber C. Kimballwas an Apostle and member of the First Presidency:

 

Discourse in the Bowery, August 16, 1857:

 

"I have not a doubt but there will be hundreds who will leave us and go away to our enemies. I wish they would go this fall: it might relieve us from much trouble; for if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, p. 375)

 

Discourse in the Tabernacle, December 13, 1857:

 

"Jesus said to his disciples, 'Ye are the salt of the earth; and if the salt loses its saving principle, it is then good for nothing but to be cast out.' Instead of reading it just as it is, almost all of you read it just as it is not. Jesus meant to say, 'If you have lost the saving principles: it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.' Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. It is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. VI, pp. 125-6)

"God designs we should be pure men, holding the oracles of God in holy and pure vessels; but when it is necessary that blood should be shed, we should be as ready to do that as to eat an apple ... we will let you know that the earth can swallow you up, as it did Korah with his host; and as brother Taylor says, you may dig your graves, and we will slay you, and you may crawl into them." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. VI, pp. 34-5)

"We read in the Bible that the Lord told Joshua to sanctify Israel; for, says he, 'there is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel.' And on the morrow they sanctified themselves by stoning to death Achan, the son of Carmi, who stole the wedge of gold and the Babylonish garment. They also stoned to death his wife and children, his oxen and his asses, and burnt them with fire, together with his tent, the silver, the gold, and the garment, in the valley of Achor.

"Thus all Israel put to death the transgressor, and sanctified themselves before the Lord. Would it not be an excellent course to pursue with this people, to sanctify them to the fullest extent of the word? There are individuals in these valleys who profess to be Latter-day Saints; but do they by their works make their profession honorable? No, their works and their profession are very dissimilar indeed. I think it would be an excellent thing for this people to be sanctified from such persons, and have them cleansed from our midst, by making

an atonement." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 17)

 

J. M. Grant, an Apostle and member of First Presidency.

 

Grant discourse in the Bowery, September 21, 1856:

 

"Some have received the Priesthood and a knowledge of the things of God, and still they dishonor the cause of truth, commit adultery, and every other abomination beneath the heavens, and they meet you here or in the street, and deny it.

"These are the abominable characters that we have in our midst, and they will seek unto wizards that peep, and to star-gazers and soothsayers, because they have no faith in the holy Priesthood, and then when they meet us, they want to be called Saints.

"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 there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, pp. 49-50.)

 

Comments by Grant which were published in the July 27, 1854 Deseret News:

 

"What disposition ought the people of God to make of covenant breakers ...What does the Apostle say? He says they are worthy of death....

"What! do you believe that people would do right, and keep the law of God, by actually putting to death the transgressors? Putting to death transgressors would exhibit the law of God, no difference by whom it was done; that is my opinion.

"But if the government of God on earth, and Eternal Priesthood, with the sanction of High Heaven, in the midst of all his people, has passed sentence on certain sins when they appear in a person, has not the people of God a right to carry out that part of his law as well as any other portion of it? It is their right to baptize a sinner to save him, and it is also their right to kill a sinner to save him, when he commits those crimes that can only be atoned by shedding his blood. If the Lord God forgives sins by baptism, and ... certain sins cannot be atoned for ... but by the shedding of the blood of the sinner, query, whether the people of God be overreaching the mark, if they should execute the law ... We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him....

"...If you shall thus advance, and then turn and trample the holy commandments of God under your feet, and break your sacred and solemn covenants, and become traitors to the people of God, would you not be worthy of death? I think you would ...

"Do you think it would be any sin to kill me if I were to break my covenants? ... Do you believe you would kill me if I broke the covenants of God, and you had the Spirit of God? Yes; and the more spirit of God I had, the more I should strive to save your soul by spilling your blood, when you had committed sin that could not be remitted by baptism. (Deseret News, July 27, 1854)