@anthony rippa great question. There is no answer to that. The answer is God doesn't have prophets on the earth. We should study and pray about what truth is for ourselves, directly to God. By the OP admitting the concept that he did in this video is the same as admitting that there is no difference between Pres. Nelson and any preacher at a corner church. It's a man at a podium giving an opinion.

@@chubbuck35 Well, just playing Saints Advocate (ok, bad pun) one very big difference is we have a much better certainty that Nelson has actually said the things attributed to him. Modern recordings are a wonderful thing. The vast majority of Brigham's sermons were transcribed by George Watt, whose accuracy is to be questioned. All though he claimed to be BY personal secretary, there are no records confirming that claim. He was a reporter, first for Desert News, and then the Salt Lake Tribune, who took it upon himself to record and publish sermons from various leaders. For about 30 years everyone was grateful, and then he was excommunicated and the Church found out they did not own the copyright to their own sermons. I do not need to go into all the detail of how Watt would exaggerate the rhetoric and rewrite sentences and sometimes paragraphs using a more florid style.

@@brettmajeske3525 This is a non-starter. There is ample documentation of his personal opinions that are lock-step w/ the rhetoric he advanced at the podium. To suggest there was some grand conspiracy to by one man to completely change who Brigham was and what he stands for is laughable. It would be an impossible task. Edit: Also, hilarious pun :)> Can you answer OP's question? Interested to hear your take on that.

@@chubbuck35 I believe you are misunderstanding my point. Most of Watt's identified changes are subtle, but they significantly change the tone of BY sermons. One of the most common was to change rhetorical questions into assertions. For example, "What do you believe in your hearts?" became, " In your hearts you must believe that...". It changed an invitation to introspection to a command. When looking at BY sermons from other sources he is far less Hellfire and Brimstone. I am not claiming that BY never made problematic statements, he certainly said something that inspired Watt. They were more often expressed as questions, leaving it to the spirit to speak, rather than the forceful rhetoric as found in the JD. I am not claiming that nothing of the JD is accurate, just that it is difficult to know when it is. You speak of ample documentation, yet when Watt is eliminate as unreliable, much of it disappears. Just demonstrates why having reliable reporters is so important. Of greater import is what Prophets following BY said about these issues. Both John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff disagreed with many statements found exclusively in the JD. The never said BY was wrong, just that he had been misunderstood. Critics often reply they were just walking back problematic comments, but giving recent findings of direct changes to the language of his sermons, maybe JT and WW were just telling the truth. When it comes to things like Blood Atonement, many Prophets, including Kimball, Hunter, Hinkley, and Monson have refuted and disavowed it specifically. Whether BY himself was wrong, or misunderstood, it is clear that as presented in JD it is not a Doctrine of the LDS Church. Which isn't to say some members hold onto discredited traditions, but Prophets have been dismissing it since as soon as BY died.

@@brettmajeske3525 Do you ever get exhausted holding up this house of cards? Edit: Also, will you please answer OP's question!

Thank you for your kind words! I'm grateful for your appreciation of our efforts to present a positive and honest representation of the LDS church and its beliefs. It's great to hear that despite not being a member, you believe in the good that the church and its members bring to the world. We believe that through understanding and empathy, we can break down misunderstandings and bring people together.

Pertaining to the blood atonement,compare to what christ have said in matt. 18:6

So true. To give an example, as a Dane, I'm often considered a very rude person when I speak with people from other cultures. However, by Danish people, I'm considered very polite. That's very interesting since it's polar opposites, but it's because we already have an idea of how people should behave based on our own experiences, and we put it on a pedestal as the standard for human behavior. Especially when it comes to history, it will only lead to misconceptions when we look through glasses of modern understanding. A perfect example is how outside of the church, we used to be called radical n---- lovers and a threat to both kkk and the white man whereas modern critics tend to look back at it, ignoring the rest of the world at that time and call it the most racist society of america People don't really realize how biased you can be because of you cultural heritage when you react to other cultures, both globally and historically

@N A Nah, you just got butthurt

Totally, my slaves are definitely happy because I treat them very well.

Good point. People think if they lived in that period they’d be born with the way they’ve been brain washed in our society along with it

The "Endowment" had users make covenents punishable to the blood Atonement until the 1970s. To not include that in this video with this topic is LYING BY OMISSION AKA LYING FOR THE LORD which is a pirincipal that was taught from the pulpit to thise running the church educational system with documentation going back to the 70' and 80s of this.

Yeah, the editing is awesome.

lol yea the editing that makes light of violent racist teachings?! Haha so funny...

@@thebard2806 ok all I can say is that I have never read or heard of a perfect prophet prophets have the right to make mistakes to learn from them hopefully they do. Remember this that the essence or purposes of life is growth and to become and to overcome. A baby can grow up and become an adult .while they cannot even wipe their own but yet they can grow up and become an adult .that is so beautiful to me .I also believe that we to can grow up and become like our Heavenly parents. I.our potential is so beautiful. Meny try minimize our potential..

@@thebard2806 ok what kind of raises feeling do you have I know I have some . I have even missed judge some of my children with thoughts and feelings that were not correct.

@@ronbrewer3493 Prophets don’t have to be perfect… but we DO need to test a claimed prophet and hold them to a standard, because there are/will be many false prophets. PLEASE read Deuteronomy 13:1-5. If a self proclaimed prophet’s teachings lead to violent murders and racism, we need to ask if those teachings and its fruit are in alignment with the God we know. If they’re not, then we need to realize that that prophet (like his teachings) is also not from God! Deuteronomy 13:1-5 essentially says that if a Prophet comes along, even if he is able to prophecy correctly, if he teaches things that lead you away from the true God of scripture then that prophet is false and not of God! Because he has spoken in order to turn you away from God.

That’s technically true, they did a video on the unpardonable sin, but you’re absolutely right. The unpardonable sin is having a perfect knowledge and still actively going against the will of the god It is believed that those who do not repent will be punished in spirit prison, where when the millenium is over they will be redeemed through their atoning for their OWN sins through gods punishment and justice, where they will then be made heirs of salvation (D&C 138) However, those who commit the unpardonable sin are cast out into outter darkness at the end of the millenium. I believe it is direct defiance after having received a fullness of truth

Spoken like a true Christian. I agree.

Dude, listen to me, be careful. Mormonism is a corporation, it's all about money now. It's been proven false time and time again, to the point where Mormons have to rely on a feeling as proof. Become a Protestant or something if you need God.

It did feel like it to me too and there was no way I would have believed it even more so with all the controversies. But if I tell you how I got to meet the missionary and the things that happened before and after... basically I had like a sort of prayer after many years, I wanted so much to learn something that would make me better, i’had even been thinking of reading the bible, and got into a Catholic Church, once asked by a friend , and twice by myself but I couldn’t pray. So yea, prior to meeting the missionary on the street I had like a prayer for the first time and imagined myself with a group of people who were teaching and speaking to me, so I thought I was going crazy to believe in this sort of things so I went out to clear my head, and just wanted to speak to someone so much, i just turn around and said I m going towards home even though I didn’t want to be home, I thought I m going towards home not home and see what s gonna happen. After meeting them at church , they would just text me almost every time I would open the Book of Mormon or other church material. That happened many times. Before meeting them I was just thinking how I need some good people who don’t drink or shout, some rules or principles to live by that are proven, someone or something to hold me accountable and some activity at the weekend to look forward to. To be honest, I was in such a bad state I don’t even know what would have happened had it not been for all this things.

This is the true church. Regardless of the human error that makes it unclean. This is still God’s church, you had that experience for a reason

@@danielsimon9585 Brother, what greater witness can ye have, than from God. Welcome, stay strong, stay faithful, stay close to Him and His appointed servants, God bless you!

Just like anything you're learning about. Hear arguments from both sides. Go obtain information for a counter-argument for this video. Then come to a conclusion.

Me too.

if you would have spent 2 years diging holes inorder to build wells you could have saved tens of thousands of lives, as lack of clean water is still one of the largest killers on earth...

@@Jimothy-723 That may be true, but what does digging wells have to do with understanding what a prophet is?

Yup, mormon apologetics at it's finest

Lightning Strikes Helicopter Crashing It Into Icy Ocean | Mayday | Wonder

I am ex Muslim. Are you a doubting Muslim?

Abi the field is ripe in possible replies to your comment. I'm surprised someone hasn't jumped in.

david janbaz are there any other scriptures that talks about this test to see if a prophet is a prophet or not? Also assuming that every single word that the prophet speaks is the will of God is a little ridiculous. If Moses is asking someone to pass him a cup of water it is safe to assume that God is not talking.

I would not necessarily say that Blood Atonement rose to the level of Prophecy. I think sometimes Young suffers from an excess of rhetoric. There are four instances where he said something now referred to as Blood Atonement. There are more the fifty sermons devoted to the universal power of the Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It has been said before, it less that we now disagree with BY, then that BY disagreed with BY.

No Christian, prophet or not, would speak these words.

Brendon King I would hate it, except every man-including prophets-has shortcomings. Belonging to any church involves other people, so that means dealing with other people’s imperfections.

@@michiganabigail I agreed .

So I take it you do not belong to any churches?

@trevor anderson If thats how you frame valid criticisms about Mormonism, maybe you should do some reflecting on why you feel such hostility towards those who point out the inaccuracies and moral failings of the folks you call prophets.

Brett Majeske pastors get things wrong, sure, but my pastor doesn’t claim to speak face to face with God.

They didn't mention it because they made two videos about it. This is part one: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fs5yo6t_3bnQoHU.html This is part two: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rat8f8Jj09-dpXk.html You can thank me later dude

You cant. We sin because we're sinners. Not sinners because we sin. If you leave the church and all its false doctrine you'll find that jesus paid for your sins past present and future. That realization brings fruits.

@@maddyboombaddybaddy6532 Yes! 👏

Have faith in Jesus Christ repent daily for what you have done and not done. Try to restitute what you can and keep the Lord's commandments.

Yeah, now I want to know the movie where that scene is from. It looks wild! 😂😂😂

@@somedude5590 it's The Ten Commandments. Or are you making a joke about wanting him to actually have the glasses on in the movie? Lol

@@ashlibradford1821 even before they put the glasses on him, it looks wild

Ahh yes the old, "our leaders aren't perfect" argument which doesn't really work when you're a prophet of god.

@@jisezer a HUMAN prophet! They’re no different than any of the rest of us. They make mistakes and repent, just like we should. The huge difference is that they are trying a whole lot harder than us to do what God asks them to do. It’s not an argument it’s plain simple fact. We are here to work towards perfection and that won’t happen until after the resurrection for anyone.

That's why personal revelation is so important. You should never just go off a church leader's words, but ask God if what they're saying is true. He will reveal to a sincere heart the truth through the holy Spirit.

That's where people get tripped up by "being perfect". When Jesus Christ invited the Jews and Nephites to "be perfect", that doesn't always mean "sinless". It's closer to "completeness". The Atonement of Jesus Christ helps us do both definitions of "be ye perfect", as we are complete, when we do what has been revealed by the Lord, through the Holy Ghost.

It could also mean excommunication since 1: that's what he teaches to do to unrepentant sinners in other verses instead of capital punishment. It would be weird if he teaches such totally different solutions to a sinner 2: when an unrepentant sinner leaves the church, satan will have power over you, and he definitely tries to destroy the natural man (our flesh), but for a true follower, he will come back to The Lord like the prodigal son when he realizes that sin will only lead to his destruction and repent

@@davidjanbaz7728 Unlike mormons AND Jesus! Remember that The Lord Himself said that sinning against The Holy Ghost is unforgivable...

david janbaz this is a stupid debate. I’m not planning on testing the theory, but I’m sure that Christ’s blood cleanses all sin from people who’re repentant. It’s tiring when you tell me what Mormons believe, and it’s not even correct.

@@davidjanbaz7728 dude.... "That doesn't mean that Jesus Atonement doesn't cleanses us from All sin." - "but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men" Commentary: if Jesus says one can't be forgiven, it can't be forgiven. We won't be cleansed. Rejecting the true Christ of christianity is Blaspheming the Holy Spirit because they are the One true triune God! -"Whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come" Commentary: Jesus actually says the opposite. Saying anything against Him is forgiveable, but not against The Holy Ghost. So to say that it's rejecting the true Christ of christianity because they're one God is wrong, simply because He says that words against Him WILL be forgiven. When one rejects Jesus, people can be forgiven "for they know not what they do". However, The Holy Ghost testifies of His divinity in your soul and makes you born again... Simplified, when you reject The Holy Ghost, you reject what you know is true, and then you.basucally beg for it Mormonism as a religion Blasphemes the Holy Spirit ! - comment: No it doesn't... However, that comment sounds oddly enough a lot like the accusations the pharisees also spat out... don't be that guy

Wow. Were all kind of a special kind of crazy to follow a God who would ask his prophet to kill his son even if its just a test. Im looking at all of u christain world and children of Israel. Good pull bro nicely played.

When I found out about that boasting quote, I cried. I still cry when I read it. How dare he say or believe he’s done more than Jesus Christ. I also found the actual quote & it valid. It’s in his personal journal and it also comes up within BYU’s library website. Breaks my heart that anyone, Prophet or not, would ever believe this of himself/ herself to compare to Jesus.

@@sbm3134 Yes, it's hard to believe anyone could see him as a true prophet after saying this. Maybe it all went to his head?...all the popularity of his followers....all the people hanging on his every word...the power it gave him....humans can't handle power well. It's certainly something no one can explain away...it's blasphemy, whichever way you look at it...

@@sbm3134 he said no MAN ever did such a work as him. And he was correct. Christ did everything, but he wasn't just a Man He was more. And on top of that he's simply pointing out that the church that Christ set up fell apart, but the church he was called of God to restore hadn't fallen yet (and won't in the future) So Joseph Smith is still correct even in this quote 😂 he is the prophet of the dispensation prior to Christ's second coming, the only dispensation that won't end in apostasy. Therefore and technically speaking, he did do more than any man (or prophet in terms of being called of God and starting a church) and anyone who thinks he thought he was greater than Christ is an idiot. He knew he wasn't greater than Christ. Everyone knows that, it's not even a question.

Megalomania is a helluva drug 😬

​@@1974AMDGAre you a Christian?

@@joeoleary9010 listen, I don't believe any of it. But Paul never claimed to talk to God.

@@jacobreeves3110 Off the top of my head, he claimed to have talked to Jesus after His resurrection, had some interactions with angels (God's messengers).

@@jacobreeves3110 galatians 1:12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ One of many, but I think that this statement couldn't be clearer

This is a great question. My personal opinion is that God gives humans (including prophets) quite a long leash. Making mistakes and learning along the way is part of mortality. God didn’t correct Paul’s quite sexist statements about women. He didn’t stop Jacob from believing the lie his sons told him about Joseph of Egypt being killed. He didn’t stop Elijah from getting a mob together to run down and kill the priests of Ba’al. Remember, prophets are not God’s sock puppets, and I think God enjoys choosing prophets from unexpected places-people you’d never expect (I.e. Paul). Why does He let these controversial things happen? I don’t know. Maybe it’s simply out of respect for our agency. Maybe it’s to teach us a lesson down the road. Maybe, like a father teaching his kid how to ride a bike, He knows that He needs to sometimes let go of the handlebars, even though He knows we’re going to crash sometimes. Just stuff to think about.

I got a question. What I don’t understand is Christianity being labeled as “sexist.” Why is that?

I have not-what’s it called?

@@davidsnell2605 "The Avenging Angel, Turner TV Network, 1995. Tom Berenger was in it too. It was about a group called the Danites that supposedly went around protecting the Church by finding enemies of the Church. Charlton Heston did a good job as I remember. I don't remember it being a negative portrayal.

Joseph Saltal cool! I’ll have to check it out. Just finished writing an episode about the Danites earlier this week. Fascinating stuff.

@@davidsnell2605 don't forget the 1940 movie starring Tyrone Power

@@vendingdudes featuring Vincent Price as Joseph Smith

Like the video said they still have their own opinions and beliefs. They are still imperfect.

@@chaseallen7499 I do get that. For me it is hard to follow someone teaching things like this. I mean at this point why not just pray directly to god and go about your life in this manner.

@@chaseallen7499 Agree, but by admitting that it nullifies the point of a prophet altogether. He's just another man at the podium giving his opinion. anything and everything he says can be disavowed in the future as him speaking as a man, including things about eternal marriage, priesthood power, the nature of God himself. It's all out on the table now as potential "speaking as a man" doctrine to be disavowed in the future. In other words, by admitting this it proves outright these men aren't/weren't prophets at all, including President Nelson.

Jason Monroe Just because a prophet has his own opinions doesn't mean he isnt a Prophet, we can still pray to God to know if what they are teach is true. Paul siad that women shouldn't speak in church? Is that God's will? According to what you are implying then yes it was God's will the women shouldn't speak in church.

​@@chaseallen7499 I agree--What Paul supposedly taught about women speaking in church is not from God either, although there is a lot of question on whether that epistle actually came from Paul or was incorrectly attributed to him. Read Bart Ehrman, one of the leading biblical historians in the world. Here's the deal. I'm not making the claim that the head of the LDS church is a prophet of God, but apparently you are and so is the person in this video. My position is that he's a man like anyone else. He's not a prophet of God. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in the LDS prophet claim. The LDS church claim is that we have a prophet on this earth who leads the one-and-only Church of Jesus Christ. The church's stance is that the LDS church has the only valid priesthood authority to act in the name of God, and the prophet holds the priesthood keys to speak for God in these latter days. Do you agree w/ that? If you don't, then I recommend you look into your church because your opinion is not aligned w/ what it is teaching. These are gospel basics. So now let's address your premise as it relates to this LDS prophet claim. Based on your premise I need to pray about everything the LDS prophet says in order to determine for myself if it is true. This is in direct contradiction to the church's position on why we have a prophet in these latter days. The church says he holds the authority to provide revelation to the general church population. Regardless of that stance though, the punchline is this: If I need to pray about everything the LDS prophet says, then what makes him different then any Joe Schmoe preacher on the corner church? At that point you are just saying a man is giving his opinion and we need to pray on if it's true. What's the point of an LDS prophet then? Why not just go right to God and pray about all the concepts to find truth in our life? Are you saying the LDS prophet has the keys to speak for God, or not? It has to be one or the other.

Really. Read the D&C, JS is constantly being called to repentance. Only Jesus Christ was perfect, everyone else, no matter how well intentioned, is an imperfect being doing the best that they can. I think that makes for an awesome role model. Many Prophets and Apostle have done the , "I know I said X earlier, but I have been corrected by the Lord. So, now I say Z". They are doing the best they can, and for the most part, are doing well. Critics will look at mistakes as if that is the entirety of the past teaching, but statistically, most of the teachings of past Prophets and Apostles is still applicable today. A minority is not, and that is why studying the modern, (as in currently living) sermons is so important. They build on the truths of the past while making any necessary coarse corrections.

@@brettmajeske3525 the problem a lot of us have is no past prophet or policy change is none of them will APOLOGIZE for past wrong that has been done. The leaders of the church believe they are exempt from it and call it revelation from god. It's ridiculous.

Using General Conference as a supplement to scripture study is still very much supported. The issue I think is that there is still a long distance from general conference and every thing anyone has ever said. Blood Atonement didn't come from Conference talks. BY himself has conflicting opinions just within his own body of reported sermons. JS was also quite clear that every member was expected to seek out revelation and not depend solely on his advice. This was what I learned in young mens and seminary back in the early 80's. It isn't new or a change. There are Conference Talks dealing with the issue at least since the 70's, and Talmage wrote about since the beginning of the 1900's. I suspect some of his Conference Talks back then would also be appropriate.

@@brettmajeske3525 As was clear from this presentation (and you can research elsewhere), the Blood Atonement doctrine was taught and is mentioned in the Journal of Discourses (5x if we believe the video). The JoD is the closest thing that we have to General Conference minutes from 1854-1886. So to claim that these ideas/doctrines were not taught at General Conference is not quite accurate imho. Most members seem to embrace talks from General Conference that they agree with but are willing to discard materials - especially older talks - which they disagree with. This includes talks about blood atonement, Adam-God doctrine, or racist teachings. I think that it's fair, even good to discard these things, but it leaves you in the awkward position of having to admit that God's prophet sometimes isn't very inspired. The natural conclusion is to wonder if they are inspired about other things (such as the November policy).

@@scottvance74 It is rather disingenuous to compare the Journal of Discourses to Conference Reports (which do exist from the time period). Conference Reports are not only recorded at the time of the Conference in question, but each speaking authority reviews the transcript for accuracy before publishing. None of the JoD are inBY's hand, most of them were recorded several hours or days after the sermon with the recorder only using their memory. There is also debate to what degree BY even reviewed the sermons attributed to him. Some Conference Reports did find their way into the JoD, but mostly they are a collection of what people remembered BY and others saying. At the time many sermons were not pre written. So while useful from an historical point of view, the JoD has never been utilized as LDS Scripture. Anything of worth from it has been republished in Official Publications. We have writings of leaders from the late 1800's and early 1900's that clearly show they did not consider such to be binding doctrine. Scripture has always had the full support of all 15 Apostles and Presidents, from the days of JS onward. This isn't a change, no matter how much critics claim. The same principal holds whenever quotes some out of print/date book by some Apostle thinking it must represent the definitive word on LDS Doctrine. What did that Apostle say in General Conference? It is not a hard concept to understand. As Bruce R McConkie said, sometimes we receive new revelation that enlightens our understanding.

@@brettmajeske3525 The Journal of Discourses was written mostly by George D. Watt. He recorded sermons in shorthand. These were offered to BY and others for review prior to publication and "corrected" in some cases. You are correct that most sermons of the time were not pre-written. But how does this make them less doctrinal? Aren't church leaders supposed to speak by inspiration? This is what they are claiming to do. If you can point me to a good online source for general conference addresses between 1850-1900 I would be very grateful - seriously. I consider the JoD the best source - but if there is something better I'm all ears. Regarding your claim, "Scripture has always had the full support of all 15 Apostles and Presidents, from the days of JS onward. " This claim doesn't even make sense. Did they support the Lectures on faith when they were in the cannon (1835-1920)? Did they stop supporting them before or after it was removed from the scriptures (1920)? What about the period from 1900-1940 when the D&C was hardly ever referenced in General Conference? Was it supported then - even though it (largely) wasn't used? The JoD was never scripture, but it was considered a close 2nd and marketed as such. Brigham Young apparently stated "I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).

@@scottvance74 I freely admit that there isn't a good online source at present for Conference Reports pre 1900. And I did say there is debate on to what degree BY actually reviewed them. He certainly had the opportunity, but he was a busy man who delegated a lot of paperwork. Some of the syntax frankly is very confusing in some of those sermons. I am aware some grammar was corrected, but honestly not enough. But all that is missing the point I was making. When they were the only source of sermons, that is what they were. They were never presented as scripture and canonized. Indeed debate about them started soon after BY died about what some of the statements meant. John Taylor was evidentially confused by some remarks, but it was the best their level of technology could provide. I can only speak as far back as the 70s, because that is when I started listening/watching to General Conference, but by then (and I suspect the trend had started earlier) it was quite common for the phrase simular to, 'over the next six months you should treat these like scripture'. In much the same vein as BY's statement. It isn't a canonization, but an encouragement to read, study, and pray for guidance. I don't think there has been a single Conference in my life time where someone did not admonish the Saints to pray about what had been presented. Actual new revelation is somewhat rare, and when it does happen there is always some official document presented with signatures of the then current Presidency/Quorum. We don't look at some CES Fireside where Elder Maxwell was sharing his testimony and say, Here is new Doctrine! Just like we do not treat Elder McConkie's books as being more definitive than his Conference Addresses. Not all of the JoD sermons are equal. Some were recorded at the time in shorthand, other were written down from memory. The majority were not from Conference Addresses, although some were. It's been awhile, but I do not believe any of the four mentions of Blood Atonement in the JoD are from actual Conferences. I know David Snell said there were five, but I am unaware of what the fifth one is, back in Institute Days when discussing the issue I only learned on four. Recently the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issue an official Bicentennial Proclamation to join Jesus the Christ, and the Proclamation on the Family. That is how Kimball presented the revelation on the priesthood, and how new chapters have been added to the D&C in the past. It isn't a new process. For that matter, it isn't a new discussion. I remember being in Gospel Doctrine classes from the late 80's early 90's that was basically a discussion on the value of JoD. Our stake president (who was also the Institute Director at UofM at the time) offered his opinion that anything of true worth would be reprinted, and that Doctrine would not be maintained in out of print (we didn't have everything available online back then) resources. About 15-20 years later, the LDS Church published the Teachings of the Prophets series. Going back in past Sunday School manuals (my father has a copy of everything printed since 1965) there is nothing on Blood Atonement. I have never understood why critics try and make it seem as if Blood Atonement, or other barely mentioned speculations of early leaders should be treated as if it was in the D&C. If they had felt that way, it could have been included. The fact BY didn't feel the need to add it to Scripture speaks volumes in my mind.

That's when he's speaking as a prophet, but you won't know if he is speaking as a man or as a prophet until you get an answer from God. (Even if he says he says it as a prophet) Then what's the point of listening to him in the first place? I wish I knew the answer.

Blood atonement was still Pantomimed in the endowment ceremony until 1990 while saying the words, “I will suffer my life to be taken.” I heard someone once say that it actually meant that someone would take their own life, but that’s not what is says. It describes submitting yourself to death, which is blood atonement.

@@howdyharris5951 Yep. You are exactly right. It dealt with submission to death. The old penalties part of the atonement. I even talked to a member recently who did not want to talk about the endowment due to oath he took in the temple. I had to remind him the penalties were removed in 1990.

So I take it you have not read the second volume of Saints as Pres Nelson has encouraged?

@@brettmajeske3525 is it taught from the manuals? It’s an honest question. I haven’t been to church in years so maybe it is, but it would surprise me. If the church were honest, they would include these facts in manuals to be taught in order to educate the people in the interest of informed consent. Unfortunately, the idea of “milk before meat” is typically only taught in systems where indoctrination is necessary to keep followers obedient and believing outlandish ideas. If there are difficult truths, or “meat” to understand then those things should be taught from the beginning or there is no informed consent. People should not be required to pay money to such organizations.

@@howdyharris5951 It isn't a matter of milk before meat, which another way of saying algebra before calculus. It is a matter of urban legend/folk tradition versus doctrine. Many of the teachings of Brigham Young are found in the correlated manuals. The priesthood manual from about 10 years ago was called "The Teachings of Brigham Young". Then there are the so called "obscure doctrines" that gets so many panties in a twist. Things that have never been formally taught by the Church as a whole, that are not found in scripture, and are often based on out of context third party sources. For example: The Utah legislature was debating a bill banning capital punishment. For those in favor of the bill speaker of the legislature. For those against, the governor of the territory. Both used religious rhetoric and statement by Joseph Smith to justify their political positions. Both speeches were published in the local newspapers. Neither speech was added to the canon of scripture or taught in any Sunday School manuals or Handbook of Instructions. Yet 150 years later, people try and claim Brigham Young's speech is somehow official doctrine, while John Taylor's speech is completely ignored. Both were given at the same time. Neither were ever used by the Church for doctrinal education. Neither are meat, just personal political opinions of individuals who also happened to be senor leaders, the two most senor at the time. The vote was very close, but the bill failed. That is what we are talking about. People misunderstanding history to claim some tradition is actually an obscure doctrine of the Church when it was only ever rhetoric in a political debate.

While I do not feel that I have all the answers, I would like to address your opening statement. That you were ignorant of many of these issues until recently. I have gotten into some confrontational discussion threads over the issue and will try to do better. Several people seem to think that because they did not know about issue 'X', the controversy must have been hidden from them. At first this puzzled me. Many of the more historical issues were discussed in Institute classes I took in the late 80s before my mission, and in the 90's afterwards. Further more as I had an interest in Church History, I would read whatever books were available (as there was not a robust internet in those days). My father supported FARMS and had many of their works. Others I would borrow from other interested people in whatever ward I was in at the time. So from one perspective, if books discussing such issues were floating around in Adrian and Ann Arbor Michigan, where we had to drive to Chicago to find the nearest LDS bookstore, then it should have been easier to find in Areas with greater Church membership. On another perspective, because of my interested, I actively sought out to learn about the early history of the Church. So I knew Watt (the transcriptionist of the Journal of Discourses) had been excommunicated. I had actually read View of the Hebrews when BYU published a copy. I had read transcripts of the debates between Roberts and Joseph F Smith about evolution. I had read Eyring's book on Religion and Faith. So in the 90's when I was a Gospel Doctrine teacher, occasionally a member would bring up some difficult saying BY had allegedly taught. Sometimes I could refute it with a statement from another Prophet, sometimes I could not. The Bishop of that ward, (you was also an Institute Teacher himself) strongly recommended sticking to Scriptures. Sunday, he believed, was not the place for speculation. While such discussions were welcomed in his classes during the week, Sunday was for the message of the Gospel restored. Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Enduring to the end. As an academic he knew there were multiple interpretations of a often poorly recorded history. He wanted me to stick to what we knew to be true. I think I had an advantage growing up in Michigan where almost all my teachers and leaders were converts. They knew they were playing catch up. They had not grown up in the Church, and so were desperate to learn. They did not think they already knew everything, and were always seeking greater light and understanding. This isn't not meant as an attack. I do not know why you where not better prepared. Because the Church does not have professionally trained clergy, every ward and class is going to have different standards. A Sunday School teacher is just as likely to be a high school band teacher, a farmer, or an auto executive as they are to be a historian. I think that is why the Prophets have always encouraged personally study, accompanied with honest prayer.

​@@brettmajeske3525 First of all, thank you for your respectful engagement and I appreciate and recognize your point of view as 100% valid. Please let me share my point of view and understand where a lot of people are coming from on this topic, especially those of us who grew up in the church in the Utah/Idaho area. Based on dozens of conversations of members both inside and post-members outside the church, I see strong evidence that my experience is the norm for a typical LDS who was raised in the church (which I appreciate that you recognized regarding you being brought up outside of the bubble). You are right. There are so many sources that I readily could have accessed to learn "the truth" about the church growing up. However, to quote the Truman show, "people accept the reality with which they are presented". Very few of mainstream LDS growing up had a dad (like you did) who even knew what FARMS was, let alone into reading and teaching about their apologetics. I feel the need to emphasize the way I was brought up and indoctrinated since primary on "being careful what you look at" because I think that is the disconnection between someone like yourself and most others who were raised in the church. I was constantly and consistently warned both in Sunday school, at home, and in general conference by the prophet himself, to be very wary of the sources that I look at. This was not some anomaly to be blamed on culture or a unique family situation. This was the voice of warning from every leader all the way up to the prophet for my entire childhood and adult life. It was not something that only I experienced, but every active child who was paying attention was taught this. I was told to only look at church approved sources, period, since a young age. It was wired into my brain that the minute I even entertained a non-approved source that I would be in Satan's power. If you did not experience this, I don't know what to tell you other than your experience was not a typical LDS experience. So is it my fault that I followed the church's guidance and didn't actually look at the sources outside of church curriculum? When you say the information was out there, yes it was and I was strictly told in no uncertain terms that it was lies and I was to stay away from it. I'm not sure what CES programs you were taking but I attended all 4 years of seminary, and religion classes all 4 years at BYU and none of this stuff was taught to me, whatsoever. A lot of the info was in Fawn Brodie's book written in the 1940's. Recently even Richard Bushman praised her book as an accurate biography of his life. Yet she was excommunicated for revealing things that are now openly admitted by the LDS church in the church essays. Do you understand the messaging that sends to a young boy where all he has known his whole life is the Mormon church? The "September 6" excommunication in the 1990's was the same situation. So we see people write about these things growing up, hear about them getting excommunicated for it (Michael Quinn, for example). With this sort of messaging I was fearful to even consider looking at a Michael Quinn book, let alone read it. I challenge you to conduct an exercise with those who grew up in the church. Get their reaction when you tell them to read the CES letter or No Man Knows My History by Fawn Brodie. They will look at you like you are Satan himself. So yes, when I say were hidden from us until the age of the internet, what I mean by that is that the church's hand was finally forced to officially acknowledges these things on it's own website--a "safe place" for members to educate themselves. It brought a lot of pain to me when I found out that throughout my mission I was prepped to recite, and often did recite, defenses about Polygamy being necessary to help take care of the widows or that charges about the Book of Abraham papyri not being the correct translation was a lie. This was a lie that I spread simply by trusting my church leaders because I needed to stick to church approved materials for my own learning. When I saw in black and white my own church coming clean in 2013 in the essays it broke my soul. It led to pain and sorrow in my heart to think I had trusted the whitewashed history I had been taught my whole life, just to now be gas lit by the church itself that it's my fault I didn't know these things. Being misled with a whitewashed narrative and then told it was your own fault is the sort of treatment that creates "angry apostates" as the phrase goes. When I bring these concerns up in my local ward, etc there are ZERO programs to help someone like me out, because there are no good answers to these questions. Instead I'm treated like a spiritual leper and get rumors spread about me being an apostate who wants to sin and destroy my family when the bishop and other leaders leak to other members about my "faith struggle", but none of them are willing to sit down and answer my questions. I have to find FARMS or someone like yourself on the internet to even engage me (thank you by the way).

@@chubbuck35 My gut reaction is to say, leave Utah. There is a reason why the rest of the membership in the world calls it Babylon. That is not helpful, so I apologize. Let me try and respond in a more constructive way. I will try and not attack Utah culture any more. First, by the time I served my Mission 30 years ago the majority of LDS live outside of Utah. I actually had an issue with one of my companions about the difference between the Gospel and culture. (The long and short of it is that white shirts are not a requirement to pass and bless the sacrament, but that is another long story.) He relied on, “well that’s the way we do it back home” as justification for a lot of behavior I had issues with. He seemed to think my experiences were irrelevant because my only experience of being in Utah was the MTC. Today over 50% of LDS members live outside the USA. Within the USA over a little 50% live outside of Utah/Southern Idaho. So be careful when considering what is the majority experience. We live in a time when being a white, born and raised in Utah (and southern Idaho), multi-generational member is actually the minority experience. Why do you think the Ensign was renamed the Liahona, when the two magazines were merged into one publication? Because Liahona was the bigger publication. Second, I would like to clarify as to what I meant by outside sources. I meant writers like B.H. Roberts, Talmage, Gordon B Hinkley, Hugh B Brown, Neil A Maxwell, Hugh B Nibley, Daniel C Peterson, John L Sorenson. Some of the works were actually published by BYU, like their edition of View of the Hebrews. That being said your experience is not unique. Although it is not my story to tell, it is part of the reason my sister is a tenured professor at Penn State instead of BYU. I remember one summer when she was taking a class from our local Institute while home from BYU. She said it was eye opening, and she worked as an assistant for Joseph McConkie. BYU is a great school in many respects, but U of U has a better Institute program by all accounts. It seems that Utah culture has historically been less open about the past then the rest of the LDS Church. Funny thing is most of the books I was reading were being written in Utah, if not at BYU. Joe McConkie has published books that cover some of the controversial topics. My sister helped correlate some of the research, and wondered why it was not taught in class. Every school has its culture. And it is not a directive from on high, as my Institute experience is not unique. While not a scientific survey, all my mission companions from outside of Utah who did not attend BYU, (about ⅔) had Institute experiences more identifiable with mine. I know that does not help you now. Roughly a quarter of the Church, (the quarter responsible for 75% of General Authorities) had you experience growing up in the Church and was shocked when they encountered things like the CES Letter (which is a whole other issue I could go on about). That is a huge amount. I wish you had been better prepared, and I can’t defend why you were not. Telling you that more than half of the Church were better prepared is not helpful to those that were not part of that half. There are some resources I really like, for example Latter-Day Saint Q&A, Anxiously Engaged, LDS Truth Claims. I know there are others, those are my favorites.

@@brettmajeske3525I really like your perspective and wisdom. Honestly, if all (or even the majority) members had your perspective I think I would have a chance of staying in the church. The only other thing I'd need to change is all of the stuff that I've learned that I can't put back in the toothpaste bottle. The shock of what I thought the church was vs what it is now is too great for me to get back to a true believing narrative. I would have just as hard a time as believing in Santa Claus again. In order to feel comfortable at church I would need the church to get rid of the narrative that focuses on the one true church, restored gospel, priesthood authority, book of Mormon historicity, compliance rules to be considered "in the club and worthy" by having a temple recommend, etc. You get my point. Sadly, I do not see it in my home ward whatsoever. I'm not sure the church could ever go this route. I literally would love to attend church with a bunch of people who think like you do. I can't thank you enough for taking the time to thoughtfully respond the way you did. It gives me hope for change in the church. If you don't mind me asking, do you consider yourself "all in" on the truth claims of the church, or is your perspective more about the goodness that comes from living the gospel and aren't concerned if Joseph actual had the vision, etc. ? Thanks again buddy.

@@chubbuck35 Well I am certainly not unique. Come to Michigan, or France. Utah transplants often mention when they move in to our ward how friendly and how much a like family it feels. I do not know what that says about where they came from. As for Truth Claims, they mostly do not bother me. I frankly find the CES Letter just as dishonest as it claims about the Church (or Utah tradition for which it does not distinguish). Might I suggest a series of 7-8 videos by Anxiously Engaged that offers some interesting perspectives: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o96aatN337bKXXk.html He actually lives in France. If you are of a more academic bent, both Latter-Day Q&A and LDS Truth claims have much longer presentations dealing with most of the issues raised by the CES Letter. I do not know if they will help you, but it might be fun to check out.

david janbaz: It’s the same faulty logic

@@davidjanbaz7728 I love how you recoil when your own anti-mormon methodology is applied to your own beliefs. They come up wanting, don't they?

david janbaz: We agree on the evidence for the Book of Mormon. There is no good evidence for most of it. Not sure where you got the idea that the Bible is false or that I ever claimed that. It is perfectly reasonable and logical to believe much of the Bible, and it’s logical and reasonable to disbelieve much of it. This is true whether any of it has been proven false or not. The evidence you’ve cited for the Bible is only evidence of the mundane claims, which nobody disputes. When it comes to the extraordinary claims, like humans being the result of dust and magic breath, talking snakes, talking donkeys, people coming back from the dead, and such, you use the same good feelings Mormons do, you just sprinkle a bit of cognitive dissonance in there. And if you think that me saying things aren’t good evidence (like, for example, the fact that a guy named Ravi Zacharias believes in the Bible) when they aren’t good evidence is “avoiding,” then I’m not sure how to help you. Maybe study the concept of evidence.

david janbaz: The historical and geographical evidence matches up for the Quran, the Vedic texts, the Buddhist accounts, Harry Potter, Pet The Great Gatsby, etc. just like it does for the Bible. If you accept supernatural claims just so long as they line up with mundane claims, then you’re letting these other religions and even fictional stories slip into your epistemological framework. Simply declaring them to be inferior without reason to do so doesn’t separate you. As for your accusations of scientism, I’m not saying science is the only tool that you can use to figure out what’s real, but I’m saying the best method that I know of to describe reality in the known universe is science. If you have an equal or better alternative, than I’m willing to look at it, but so far you’ve used no alternatives, spiritual revelations, which are exactly what Mormons use. Other than that, you’ve made bald assertions based off of unsubstantiated claims. That’s faulty logic, and you share this disdain for the scientific method with all the other religions mentioned. So, if you have some way, other than evidence, that you’ve determined that humans can raise from the dead, please elaborate.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

On top of that, Mormons also believe you need good works in addition to Jesus’ sacrifice to be saved and given heaven (or at least the highest level of heaven in their faith). For example, you need to be married (aka sealed) to get into the highest kingdom of god, as well as baptized. This creates an oxymoron, they say all you need is this and god’s grace to enter the best level of heaven, but true grace would mean no additional works are required to be saved. True grace from god is enough on its own.

@@elliefuller3667 thats nowhere near the begining, or end of the self contradiction. the story is that joseph smith was given new doctrine by an angel, but in Galations 1:8 of the Holy Bible it specificaly says "if he, or an angel in heaven is to add or take away: let he be acursed" (i paraphrased but i do encourage you to read it) so acording to the bible the story for founding mormonism is heretical.

@@Jimothy-723 Of course, I just didn’t want to go on a long winded comment about the sheer amount of flaws to be found in Mormonism/its founders. It’s funny, Mormons say that they believe in the Bible still but it’s “not complete” therefore they need the Book of Mormon…and yet they NEVER read the Bible. I was raised a Mormon for 17 years before I walked away from it, never in all that time did I read the Bible. Not once. If it’s a true doctrine, why is it that I never read that in addition to BoM? I don’t think prophets can keep their story straight. It’s so clear that Mormonism is heresy and falsehoods once you leave it, the only issue is getting good, spiritual people to realize they were raised in a false faith and encouraging them to pray and find the truth. It’s hard coming to terms with something like that, especially if you’ve established friendships and community in your faith. But it’s better to experience bitter truth than comforting lies.

@@elliefuller3667 article of faith 8 dictates the translation of the bible is not correct. "...insofar as it is translated correctly..." combine that with the Joseph Smith translation and you can see that they only use the KJV as a tool to recruit unsuspecting protestants into their false religion. ever wonder why they dont use the Joseph Smith Translation, despite being written by their profit? well thats cause the LDS does not own the copy right for that book... the RLDS does.

@@Jimothy-723 Interesting, I didn’t know that. The RLDS has always seemed closer to what Joseph Smith envisioned though…especially the polygamy.

As the video describet well, it seemed to have been 19th century language to support capital punishment. There is one story where one participant of the mountain meadows massacre asked Young what needs to be done to repent of that act. Young responded: noose about your neck and a swift jerk. Co sidering how all the weirdest things have been documented, so that anti mormons have access to this stuff, I am sure that any blood atonement acts would be also documented if they took place. Capital punishment did happen though and that could be seen as it, but then again, there is nothing out of place of the ordinary with that.

@@davidjanbaz7728 The US Supreme Court declared hanging cruel and unusual, so the current choices are firing squad, and injection.

@@davidjanbaz7728 According to wikipedia: "The last public hanging in the United States took place on 14 August 1936, in Owensboro, Kentucky. Rainey Bethea was executed for the rape and murder of 70-year-old Lischa Edwards... Barton Kay Kirkham was the last person to be hanged in Utah, preferring it over execution by firing squad. No subsequent inmate in Utah had been hanged by the time the option was replaced with lethal injection in 1980... ...The United States suspended executions in 1972 but resumed them in 1976, after the Supreme Court revised the list of acceptable methods, eliminating hanging for Federal Offenses... ...The method (firing squad) is often the supreme punishment or disciplinary means employed by military courts for crimes such as cowardice, desertion, espionage, murder, mutiny, or treason... and has been used by the U.S. army as recently as the Iraq war... In 1913, Andriza Mircovich became the first and only inmate in Nevada to be executed by shooting...Execution by firing squad was banned in Utah in 2004. Idaho banned execution by firing squad in 2009, temporarily leaving Oklahoma as the only state in the union utilizing this method of execution (and only as a secondary method)... In February 2019, South Carolina's Senate voted 26-13 in favor of a revived proposal to bring back the electric chair and add firing squads to its execution options.[67]

@@davidjanbaz7728 How is that? Both firing squad and hanging were the predominant methods of execution in the 1800's. Currently only the Federal Government, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and South Carolina still even allow it, Utah ended the practice before Idaho. Hanging or Firing Squad were the options (prisoner's choice) until 1980 when hanging was replaced with lethal injection. Your point was that Utah was some sort of outlier, with regards specifically to Firing Squad. The majority of executions have been either hanging or lethal injection, with Firing Squad now banned. How does any of that prove your point?

@@davidjanbaz7728 How many state legislators are LDS in Idaho, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and South Carolina? They were the other states that kept Firing Squad as an alternative to lethal injection. Must be a lot of LDS legislators in SC. Again from Wikipedia: "All 28 states with the death penalty for murder provide lethal injection as the primary method of execution. Some states allow other methods than lethal injection, but only as secondary methods to be used merely at the request of the prisoner or if lethal injection is unavailable. In the following states, death row inmates with an execution warrant may choose to be executed by:[145] Electrocution in Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Lethal gas in Arizona and California. Firing squad in South Carolina, Mississippi and Oklahoma. In four states (Arizona, Kentucky, Tennessee and Utah), the alternative method is offered only to inmates sentenced to death for crimes committed prior to a specified date (usually when the state switched from the earlier method to lethal injection). Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in Arthur v. Dunn: "In addition to being near instant, death by shooting may also be comparatively painless ... And historically, the firing squad has yielded significantly fewer botched executions."[66] In February 2019, South Carolina's Senate voted 26-13 in favor of a revived proposal to bring back the electric chair and add firing squads to its execution options. Simular laws are being considered in Ohio, Texas, and Virginia. Firing squad is still the primary method of execution for the U.S. Army, (but not the Navy or Air Force), although it was last used in 1966." In my research I found I was mistaken, the Supreme Court only banned hanging in 1978 for Federal Executions, leaving only Firing Squad and Lethal Injection as lawful forms. Over half the states that continued with Executions after 1978, still used hanging, most of which like Utah ended the practice as barbaric. The Supreme Court has never limited the usage of Firing Squads, where it has several other methods. So what does it matter? The primary method of execution in Utah was hanging, then injection. That includes the time before statehood. I just do not see what it has to do with the topic.

Yea... but this is about blood atonement. There's already a specific video made about that from "Saints unscripted"

Um, you do realize Roberts was one of those leaders? It was less an adversarial relationship and more debate within the ranks.

Are you implying there is a defensible way to condone the death penalty for interracial sex?

@@seans5289 No.

Brett Majeske: Sorry. My question was for AJ. I think we agree on this one, to some extent, at least. Hope you’re well.

@@seans5289 Oh, sorry. Although just to muddy the waters, there is some support that BY was speaking about Slave Owners taking advantage of their slaves, in which case I sort of agree with him. Sexual abuse of innocents is a button of mine.

My mom got the jab because Nelson told us to get it, and now my mom thinks the jab is evil (which it is), but why does she never point out that Nelson spread false (a lie) information? The reason she doesn't is because she doesn't want to admit the church is fallible.

We look at the patterns of teaching of all the Prophets, not just one in isolation.

Murder is evil

@@brian5128 Yup. If we read Genesis 9:5 we will be required to give an account for ALL blood we spill (including animals). God considers all blood-shed murder.

@@edenicchristian335 my point is I don't see what's wrong with blood atonement its eye for an eye in my opinion it's no different than the death penalty I think the church shouldn't try and be like oh well he didnt really mean that they should double down murder is such a graven sin that the only way one should be forgiven of it is through death because you took another human life you broke your covenants with god and I understand if people were worried about it becoming like catholic inquisitions accusing people you don't like of those crimes that's why Brigham young himself taught that this is reserved for the most serious of sinners who commit the most high sins that anger God and break his covenants. It was taught that if blood atonement was thought to be necessary that there should be much prayer and council on it

@@brian5128 God didn't want an eye for an eye. That was a concession for fallen human nature. Jesus specifically negates this supposed "law"

@@brian5128 If he wanted an eye for an eye why did he not kill Cain? Or King David? Or...

If one investigates the circumstances, the talk about "Blood Atonement" was from political speeches Brigham Young gave endorsing capital punishment. Admittedly the Journal of Discourses does a poor job of distinguishing between Young's religious sermons and political speeches. Young did have a bombastic exaggerated rhetorical style, which has caused some confusion.

@@brettmajeske3525 Brigham didn't teach it as man's law, he taught it as doctrine. Here's an excerpt: "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 sheding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant." This isn't talking about transgressing an earthly law it's talking about sin specifically. If this was a political sermon the only thing the context does is show how much of a theocracy Utah was, it does not dispute the teaching. Not only this, but Joseph taught about blood atonement as well: “I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.” - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 296, 1949 Brigham took it further in explaining that both apostasy and even mixing with the seed of Caine (Africans) was worthy of blood atonement. As you can tell from Joseph's quote, it's very specific in the manner of death which it was to be performed. Not by hanging but specifically by blood shed. Even Bruce R. McConkie talked about blood atonement and said it would only be feasible in a theocracy. If it was a figure of speech, why did McConkie clarify the way he did? Why was Joseph so descriptive and why did Brigham teach it so specifically as well? You have to take out others' examples of blood atonement for that argument to hold weight

@@morningstoke Brigham didn't use the term blood atonement with either apostates or mixed marriages. Yes, he used exaggerated language, but when it came to actual implementation of policy his actions were far less extreme than his reported words. There were mixed marriages in Utah, and they were not even prosecuted (it was against federal law at the time) let alone executed. IT seems highly likely that he used exaggerated rhetoric to discourage people from breaking the law. He would not have been the only politician to do so. Your quote was still about murder, the shedding of innocent blood, not however doctrine, because doctrine would require confirmation of the entire 15 and them be presented to the general body of the Church for a sustaining vote. Again, the Journal of Discourses, from whence that quote comes, was not published or copyrighted by the Church. The accuracy of multiple speeches has been called into question, George Watts the owner and editor, seems to have often accentuated Young's already bombastic rhetoric. The quote comes from a speech delivered to the Deseret legislature, so it was about legal policy. Blood atonement was a folk tradition that McConkie seems to have believed in, but he believed in many things before being ordained as an Apostle to which he later admitted to being wrong. The books he wrote prior to joining the Q12 reflected only his personal opinions, not the official policies of the Church as he made clear in the introduction.

@@brettmajeske3525 Apostasy and Blood Atonement from Journal of Discourses Vol. 4: "I could refer you to plenty of instances where men, have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, 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 neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind." Clearly talking about spilling the blood of those who have left the church. Interracial marriage and Blood Atonement: 1847: "If they [the interracial couple and child] were far away from the Gentiles [i.e. non-Mormons] they wo[ul]d all have to be killed[.] [W]hen they mingle seed it is death to all. If a black man & white woman come to you & demand baptism can you deny them? [T]he law is their seed shall not be amalg[a]mated. Mulattoes are like mules[,] they cant have the children, but if they will be Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God’s Heaven’s sake they may have a place in the Temple." - Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet p. 222 1852: "Were the children of God to mingle their seed with the seed of Cain [i.e. black people] it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the Priesthood upon them[selves] but they entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say ["]cut off my head,["] and [one then] kill[ed the] man, woman and child, it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin. Would this be to curse them? No, it would be a blessing to them-it would do them good, that they might be saved with their brethren. A many would shudder should they hear us talk about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, although the true principles of it are not understood." - The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854 p. 44 1865: "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 If there were marriages in the church between blacks and whites I'd love to see evidence and dates they were sealed. I'd also be interested to see a reference to McConkie denouncing his prior claims. As for Blood Atonement and apostasy and Blood Atonement and interracial marriage, the above quotes prove they were taught in descriptive detail - especially in regards to apostasy.

@@morningstoke Again, I have repeated this numerous times, the Journal of Discourses was not an official publication of the LDS Church. The owner/publisher who held the copyright was an excommunicated journalist who went on the help found the Salt Lake Tribune. There is clear evidence he often altered Young's original sermons making them more extreme in print. It is not a source of LDS doctrine, period. It has no place in this discussion. As for McConkie, in 1989 the third edition of Mormon Doctrine was published in which significant alterations and subtractions were made. The first and second editions were published before McConkie been ordained an Apostle, which also contained significant differences from each other. When ask why so much had been changed, McConkie stated he had been wrong about some issues in the past. The foreword to every edition clearly states that the material is only McConkie's personal opinion and thus is not to be considered an official source of Church policy or doctrine. The most notable and publicly discussed changes were with regards to the former priesthood restriction, about which he specifically said: "There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles." Given the explicit admission of error on one topic, and the multitude of changes as his personal opinion evolved, using any edition of the book to imply any kind of official status is problematic. There is a clear source of doctrine, the canon of LDS Scripture, which makes no mention of such teachings. There is also a clear source of policy, the Handbook of Instructions, which as also never mentioned 'blood atonement' or anything simular. The closest I can find to anything like an official statement would be the Gospel Topic Essay, which denounces violence in all its forms. The Essay concludes that Youngs speeches were rhetorical exaggerations that were misunderstood. The teaching of 'blood atonement' is not now, or has ever been found taught in official publications and manuals. It is a folk tradition based on misunderstanding of an exaggerated bombastic rhetoric from a period where the Saints were experiencing intense persecutions.

I love this explanation! Thanks for sharing!

Perhaps we are not thinking of the same reference to interracial marriage. Feel free to message me on Facebook and we can chat about specifics.

Some claims against our faith are more ridiculous than others. I try to be respectful and sensitive, as some of the topics I address are quite painful to many people. I’m sincerely sorry, though, if you feel that my opinion of critics is that they are an unruly mob. There are some that I view as insincere and dishonest, but I think that most believe they have good intentions at the end of the day. And I’m sure that outside of the subject of religion we’d agree on a great many things, like how Redvines are far superior to Twizzlers, or how The Goonies is one of the best movies of all time.

The problem is, unfortunately we will forever be branded as the heretics and apostates the church labels us as because we ‘left the greater light’.

david janbaz I’m aware, and thank God, but I was talking as if from an LDS perspective.

@@joeoleary9010 That's a fair point, I'll try to be more sensitive to that kind of content when I receive edited drafts of these videos. Thanks.

@@BrendonKing I certainly hope that in the future more Latter-day Saints will listen to the counsel Dieter F. Uchtdorf gave in that same talk I mentioned to you in another comment (Come Join With Us, 2013): "The search for truth has led millions of people to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, there are some who leave the Church they once loved. "One might ask, 'If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?' "Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. "Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church. "In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves."

Why was he regarded as a prophet just like spencer kimball and all the others?

Because the church still has a bunch of sheep that need to be told what to do. Beggars can’t be choosers it seems.

@@maddyboombaddybaddy6532 He was an opportunists. Confident like Joseph. He just happened to be the guy to take over. Someone had to do it I guess. None of these men speak to God. They are constantly contradicting themselves or past prophets.

And as a prophet too 😇

Then don't join any church because whether they call themselves prophets or not, they are still false prophets.

That’s exactly what I was thinking!

I would love to be able to see the inside of brain. It would probably be horrific, and the irony of calling a man "crazy" whom you likely know little about would be pure irony. But because I can't get that special little peak, I'm just going to have to assume I'm right and move on without further comment.

K.L. What? I’m not saying he was wrong in his revelation, just that he also had some strange ideas. The person, not the prophet.

@@michiganabigail I was responding to the original commenter anyway. Referring to Brigham Young as "crazy" isn't exactly playful is it?

@@lexingtonconcord8751 Actually.. it was playful..... I didn't mean anything by it other then that's how one of my former missionary companions (playfully mind you..) refered to him. I would assume because of the long beard and never a photograph with him smiling. But.. I'm with you... I wish I could somehow get in my own brain and look around and yes.. probs a few scary things but nothing worse than most people👍