liz3564 wrote:The temple penalties, which are no longer practiced, were symbolic of blood atonement.
No. They were not.
I can't believe I'm about to write this, but I have to go with Pahoran on this. The endowment ceremony, with its penalties, was instituted in 1842, years before Brigham first preached about blood atonement. Obviously the violence for both, whether symbolic or not, is similar, but I don't think the endowment penalties were connected to the blood atonement doctrine (at least not as the endowment was first presented by Joseph Smith). Just my $.02.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
liz3564 wrote:The temple penalties, which are no longer practiced, were symbolic of blood atonement.
No. They were not.
I could say more, but I won't. Believing Latter-day Saints do not profane the Temple by discussing sacred matters in such an environment; and persons of good character, if such there be, will neither exploit that fact nor attempt to draw invidious conclusions therefrom.
Ah, the beauty of the temple ritual being too sacred to talk about. A simple 'nuh-uh' answer is enough.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:I can't believe I'm about to write this, but I have to go with Pahoran on this. The endowment ceremony, with its penalties, was instituted in 1842, years before Brigham first preached about blood atonement. Obviously the violence for both, whether symbolic or not, is similar, but I don't think the endowment penalties were connected to the blood atonement doctrine (at least not as the endowment was first presented by Joseph Smith). Just my $.02.
But what about the other way around? ie., BY's blood atonement ideas came from the endowment.
Who Knows wrote:From the Sheilds site: The following is a copy of a letter from Elder Bruce R. McConkie, acting under the direction of the President Kimball and the First Presidency, responding to this issue:
McConkie basically says that Blood Atonement is only a 'theoretical principle' that isn't practiced today. He also says "Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses."
Elder McConkie said that? What does he think about D&C 134:10?
10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
Is he saying that no religious society has that right but that one day some shall? When is this supposed to happen--during the Millenium? I thought the truly wicked would be gone anyhow.
When the Nephites were righteous and had control of the govenment, did they practice blood atonement? Sure, maybe the Israelites did, but come on, why bother teaching us about blood atonement when there is no reason to suspect it will be applicable in the future any more than circumcision?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
liz3564 wrote:The temple penalties, which are no longer practiced, were symbolic of blood atonement.
No. They were not.
I could say more, but I won't. Believing Latter-day Saints do not profane the Temple by discussing sacred matters in such an environment; and persons of good character, if such there be, will neither exploit that fact nor attempt to draw invidious conclusions therefrom.
Ah, the beauty of the temple ritual being too sacred to talk about. A simple 'nuh-uh' answer is enough.
Thanks, Who Knows! ;)
Actually, Rollo managed to address my issues without being rude, or calling my character into question. Thanks, Rollo, for the information. I was unaware of that.
I simply always felt that those particular penalties were dark and out of place, and I'm frankly glad they're gone.
If I offended you, Pahoran, by stating that, I apologize. I don't feel that I was defaming or mocking the temple service.
Who Knows wrote:But what about the other way around? ie., BY's blood atonement ideas came from the endowment.
Certainly possible; I don't recall BY or any other G.A. making that connection, however.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Who Knows wrote:But what about the other way around? ie., BY's blood atonement ideas came from the endowment.
Certainly possible; I don't recall BY or any other G.A. making that connection, however.
Well duh, you can't talk about it - remember?
And this is from something you quoted above:
Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.
And you're trying to tell me there's no connection? That's straight from the temple.
liz3564 wrote:I simply always felt that those particular penalties were dark and out of place ....
The endowment penalties (among other parts) had a close connection to the penalties used (and still used to this day) in Freemasonry rituals. I don't recall Joseph Smith ever making the connection to blood atonement or similar doctrine.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Who Knows wrote:And this is from something you quoted above:
Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.
And you're trying to tell me there's no connection? That's straight from the temple.
I noted above that the violence in both was similar. Besides, cutting one's throat (whether in an LDS or non-LDS context) usually is "from ear to ear" -- the same method was used in the movie "Braveheart," but I doubt Mel Gibson based his portrayal on the endowment penalties. ;)
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)