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 FOLLOW THE PROPHET; AN EXEGESIS OF 1 KINGS 13

 

Among the stranger stories in the Old Testament is the account of the Man of God and the Old Prophet found in 1 Kings 13. The chapter is often summarized as a warning about false prophets or deceivers. While that interpretation contains an element of truth, I believe it misses the deeper lesson entirely.

The common reading goes something like this: a prophet from Judah is sent by God to deliver a message against Jeroboam's altar at Bethel. God gives him strict instructions not to eat bread, drink water, or return by the same way he came. After delivering the prophecy, he is approached by an older prophet who claims to have received a new revelation from an angel instructing him to bring the Man of God home and feed him. The Man of God accepts the invitation, disobeys the command previously given by God, and is later killed by a lion on the road.

Many readers conclude that the lesson is simple: beware of lying prophets. Yet the text itself raises several questions. First, the chapter never begins by calling the Old Prophet false. More importantly, after the Man of God accepts the invitation and sits at the table, the word of the Lord comes through the very same Old Prophet who had brought him home. The text continues to identify him simply as "the old prophet." He then accurately foretells the death of the Man of God, and his prophecy comes to pass exactly as spoken.

Afterward, the Old Prophet mourns the Man of God, buries him in his own tomb, and asks that his own bones eventually be laid beside him. He further affirms that the Man of God's prophecy against the altar at Bethel will surely come to pass. This behavior is difficult to reconcile with the idea that the chapter is primarily about a false prophet deceiving a true one. What if the real lesson lies elsewhere?

The crucial fact is that the Man of God had already received direct instructions from God. Whether the Old Prophet was lying, mistaken, testing him, or even acting under divine direction ultimately becomes secondary. The Man of God's responsibility was not to determine the status of the Old Prophet. His responsibility was to remain faithful to the revelation he had already received. Instead, he abandoned a commandment given directly by God because another religious authority claimed to possess newer information. 

This is where the story becomes uncomfortable. Many believers assume that the existence of prophets, apostles, pastors, teachers, or other spiritual authorities relieves them of personal responsibility. The reasoning is simple: if God speaks through these individuals, then obedience to them is equivalent to obedience to God. The story of the Man of God suggests otherwise.

The Old Prophet may have been genuine. He may have received revelation at other times. God may indeed have spoken through him. None of that changed the fact that the Man of God had already been given instructions of his own and was accountable for obeying them. The lesson, therefore, is not merely "beware false prophets." The lesson is: do not place any human authority between yourself and God.

Prophets are messengers. They are not substitutes for God. Their role is not to eliminate the need for discernment, prayer, or personal revelation. If anything, the higher the authority claimed by a messenger, the greater the need to ensure that what is being communicated actually comes from the Lord. This principle appears throughout scripture. 

"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help" (Psalm 146:3).

"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm" (Jeremiah 17:5).

The problem is not listening to prophets. The problem is replacing God with them. This is why the story remains relevant. Every generation produces religious leaders who insist that obedience to them is equivalent to obedience to God. Every generation also produces followers willing to surrender personal responsibility in exchange for certainty. The Man of God serves as a warning against both.

God expects His servants to seek Him directly. He expects them to test what they hear. He expects them to compare every claim, every teaching, and every purported revelation against what He has already revealed and, when necessary, to seek confirmation from Him personally.

The tragedy of the story is not that the Man of God encountered another prophet. The tragedy is that he trusted the prophet more than he trusted God. That is a mistake every generation remains capable of repeating.

The Weight of the Test

What makes the story even more striking is that the Man of God's prophecy against Jeroboam's altar was not fulfilled immediately. It remained unfulfilled for roughly three centuries until the reign of King Josiah. When Josiah eventually came to Bethel and destroyed the altar exactly as foretold, he noticed a nearby tomb. Upon learning that it belonged to the Man of God who had prophesied these events centuries earlier, he ordered that the tomb remain undisturbed. The bones of the man of God were left in peace, together with those of the Old Prophet who had buried him there (2 Kings 23:15-18).

This detail is remarkable. The Lord not only vindicated the Man of God's prophecy, but preserved his memorial through three hundred years of history. The fulfillment was so precise that the writer of Kings regarded it as the completion of the very prophecy recorded in 1 Kings 13.

This raises an important question. If the Man of God was such a trusted messenger that God fulfilled his prophecy centuries later down to the smallest details, why was his punishment so severe? The answer appears to lie in the trust that had been placed in him. Throughout scripture, greater light brings greater accountability. The issue was not that the Man of God was wicked. The issue was that he had been given direct revelation and then abandoned it in favor of another voice.

In that sense, the severity of the punishment serves as a confirmation rather than a contradiction of his prophetic authority. God stood behind every word He had spoken through the Man of God, including the commandment not to eat or drink in Bethel. The fulfillment under Josiah demonstrates that the original revelation was genuine. The death of the prophet demonstrates that God expected obedience to it.

The story therefore becomes less about deception and more about stewardship. The greater the revelation, the greater the responsibility to remain faithful to it. This is one reason the account continues to challenge readers. Most of us imagine that our greatest danger lies in following false prophets. The story suggests a different danger: receiving genuine revelation from God and then allowing another voice, however respected, to displace it. 

It also demonstrates that when a prophet falls into sin by disobeying God, even to the point of suffering death as a direct consequence, it does not negate his prior service, does not negate the love God continues to have for him or His intention to ultimately redeem him and bring him to Heaven with Him. God still fulfilled the prior prophecy to the letter, and God fulfills his prophecies on His own time table, and not necessarily for the convenience of man seeking to judge prophets by what they can determine, prove or comprehend.

The Shared Tomb

Perhaps the most overlooked detail in the entire account appears not in 1 Kings 13, but in its conclusion three centuries later. After the lion killed the Man of God, the Old Prophet mourned him, recovered his body, laid it in his own tomb, and instructed his sons:  "When I am dead, then bury me in the sepulcher wherein the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones." This is not the behavior one would expect from a deceiver celebrating a successful deception. The Old Prophet treated the Man of God not as an adversary, but as a fellow servant of God worthy of honor.

The Old Prophet publicly affirmed that the Man of God's prophecy would come to pass and desired to remain beside him even in death. In doing so, he also bore prophetic witness to the future fulfillment of the prophecy, which occurred under Josiah some three centuries later. Furthermore, the word of the Lord that came through the Old Prophet concerning the Man of God's death was fulfilled immediately. By the standard given in Deuteronomy, the biblical text presents him as having spoken true prophecy, not false prophecy. This makes it difficult to dismiss him as merely a deceiver and encourages us to reconsider whether the lesson of the chapter lies elsewhere.

The significance of this detail becomes even greater three centuries later. When King Josiah fulfilled the prophecy by destroying the altar at Bethel, he came upon the tomb. Upon learning that it contained the remains of the Man of God, he ordered that the grave remain undisturbed. Significantly, the text also preserves the resting place of the Old Prophet beside him. The account does not distinguish one as a true prophet and the other as a false prophet. Both are treated as genuine prophetic figures connected to the same remarkable prophecy.

The stories in scripture give snapshots to teach lessons and reaffirm the Torah, rather than give full accounts of people's lives in great detail, but from what is given, the common assumption that it presents a false prophet tempting the man of God is nowhere stated and therefore is read into the text. The idea is understandable, but upon consideration, the greater share of evidence supports the reading of a genuine prophet sent to test the man of God. 

Tradition and ingrained expectation and fears regarding false prophets may make this a difficult reading to accept, however, it should provoke serious thought and challenge the common assumption that the Old Prophet was merely a wicked deceiver. The biblical writers appear content to remember both men as prophets, one who delivered the prophecy and another who later bore witness to its fulfillment.

Not only do I find the totality of evidence unsupportive of the common reading that the old prophet is a false one, find the central lesson of the chapter being reduced to a generic warning of false prophets less instructive and useful as the nuanced one of obedience and resisting the easy path of deferring to human authority. The former reading reduces to a reminder to use discernment, the step that the man of God overlooked when he second guessed his prior revelation, which is a good reminder, but is already an incorporated fixture of lessons on receiving revelation in the first place. 

The text itself seems more focused on the deeper different lesson extracted from the latter reading. The Man of God had received a command directly from the Lord. Regardless of who delivered the contrary instruction, he was responsible for remaining faithful to what God had already revealed to him. The story is therefore not primarily about identifying false prophets. It is about discernment, stewardship, and obedience to God above every other voice.

The Danger of Delegated Discernment

If this interpretation is correct, then the lesson of 1 Kings 13 extends far beyond the ancient kingdom of Israel. Most religious traditions possess mechanisms designed to reduce uncertainty. Some encourage trust in prophets. Others encourage trust in councils, creeds, traditions, confessions, scholars, pastors, rabbis, priests, or theologians. Some teach explicitly that God will never allow their leaders to lead the people astray. Others imply the same thing indirectly through appeals to authority and institutional continuity.

The appeal of such ideas is obvious. They promise safety. If someone else bears responsibility for discerning truth, then the burden of discernment is lifted from the individual believer. Yet the story of the Man of God suggests the opposite. The Man of God was not condemned because he ignored a prophet. He was condemned because he obeyed one. The issue was not whether the Old Prophet held genuine authority. The issue was that the Man of God allowed another authority to displace the word he had already received from God.

This possibility should unsettle every believer. What if a respected authority tells us something contrary to what God has already revealed? What if a tradition contradicts the plain teachings of scripture? What if a prophet, pastor, scholar, or church leader sincerely believes something that is nevertheless mistaken? What if we ourselves misunderstand what they said and then attribute our misunderstanding to God? 

The common assumption is that obedience transfers responsibility. The story suggests otherwise. At no point does God excuse the Man of God by saying, "You were only following a prophet." The responsibility remained his. The same principle applies today. God may call prophets. He may establish churches. He may appoint teachers and shepherds. Scripture itself recognizes all of these. Yet none of them remove the individual's obligation to seek confirmation from God, to exercise discernment, and to remain faithful to what God has revealed.

This is why scripture repeatedly warns against placing ultimate trust in men. Men may be wise. Men may be inspired. Men may even be chosen by God for specific purposes. Yet they remain men. The temptation is not merely to trust them. The temptation is to trust them instead of God.

Religious history is filled with examples of entire communities accepting error because they assumed their leaders could not err. The details vary from one tradition to another, but the underlying principle remains remarkably consistent. Once a person becomes convinced that a particular authority can never lead them astray, discernment begins to atrophy. Questions become disloyalty. Inquiry becomes rebellion. Conscience becomes subordinate to institution.

The lesson of 1 Kings 13 cuts directly against such assumptions. God did not give the Man of God a prophet to replace his responsibility. He gave him a commandment and expected him to remain faithful to it. The same remains true for us. Teachers, leaders, traditions, and even prophets may assist us. They may instruct us. They may point us toward God. But none of them can stand between us and our obligation to seek Him personally.

The safest place is not blind trust in leaders, nor blind trust in ourselves. It is continual reliance upon God, who alone is without error.

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)

We Will Debate Anyone But Strang

 Correspondence found in the Millennial Star, Volume 3. Philadelphia, August 30th, 1846. See also Gospel Herald, Voree, Volume 1, No. 8. In opposition to the revelations given through Joseph Smith Junior regarding the order of the church and its quorums, with the Twelve being subordinate to the First Presidency, and with ten of that quorum declaring that there shall be no more First Presidency and that they shall direct the church, James J. Strang writes to meet with them so that they can bring their strong reasons, as is recorded in ULDS D&C 71. Though clever in its flippancy, their response reveals their trepidation, as they were willing to meet with any other who might oppose their bid for leadership. Without proving anything, they accuse a saint in all ways honoring the laws of the church of being Satan while presuming the prestige of God and assuming entitlements even he does not, for he gave Lucifer a full hearing. They also refer to their having illegally recorded an excommunication of James, but if they had consulted the Law of the Church, they would have seen that a trial must be made to make such action legal, and that would mean hearing and answering his testimony. The closest this was had was in the pleadings before the Court of Law when Brigham Young sued James J. Strang for the right of possession of the Kirtlin Temple, and having won the case in the pleadings by showing that Young had no legal right to assume leadership, let alone possess church property, Young withdrew his cause lest he commit the ordeal to publicly available transcripts.

1. Messrs. John Taylor and Orson Hyde: Knowing from your public proceedings, as well as otherwise, that you and others associated with you, claim the right, and are attempting to use the power of dictating all the affairs of the church of Jesus Christ in all the world, not under the direction of the First Presidency thereof, but independently;

2. I suggest to you the propriety of publicly showing by what means you are authorized to act as leaders to said church, and offer to publicly discuss that question with you in this city, or any other proper place that will suit your convenience.

3. Your answer to this, left at the house of Jacob Gibson, on the northeast corner of Third and Dock Streets, near the post office, will receive immediate attention. Yours respectfully. James J. Strang.

4. The answer to the above: Sir: After Lucifer was cut off and thrust down to hell, we have no knowledge that God ever condescended to investigate the subject or right of authority with him.

5. Your case has been disposed of by the authorities of the church, and being satisfied with our own power and calling, we have no disposition to ask from whence yours came. Yours respectfully, Orson Hyde and John Taylor.