Blood Atonement: Is it real?

[_rcrocket]

Lee was not a witness. Lee never lived anywhere near these events. I don't care what some BYU Church history professor thinks. Lee's confessions were fabricated.

How do you disregard Gustive Larsen's statement that "reputable eyewitnesses" confirmed that the incident happened?

Let's start at square one with issues of violence in Utah. I don't pretend to say there weren't murderers and people willing to take a life for moral offense.

But, the analysis requires a fair use of primary sources. Lee is not a primary source. Beadle probably sent this crap to Bishop who installed it. The editors of Lee's journals don't put this material into his works because the say it was a fabrication.

I don't care what Larson says if I know the facts to be to the contrary. I didn't see Larson's name logged in as a Huntington scholar for the massacre files.

Email me the rest of the Gustav UHQ article: rcrocket@msn.com. [You cite it directly, so that implies you have it.]

I have it at home if you don't.

Plutarch

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But, the analysis requires a fair use of primary sources. Lee is not a primary source. Beadle probably sent this crap to Bishop who installed it.

Bagley would beg to differ (see pp. 318-19 in Blood of the Prophets).

I don't care what Larson says if I know the facts to be to the contrary.

I don't even know if Larsen relied on Lee -- he refers only to reports of "reputable eyewitnesses."

I didn't see Larson's name logged in as a Huntington scholar for the massacre files.

This incident was not part of the MMM -- it happened a month later.

Email me the rest of the Gustav UHQ article: rcrocket@msn.com. [You cite it directly, so that implies you have it.]

I don't have it; just the quote and cite. If you could read the copy you have and give any additional information about Larsen's sources (or additional text in the article that sheds light on his quote), I'd appreciate it.

[_Dr. Shades]

Yes, Blood Atonement was real. Yes, many people were put to death under its auspices.

Regarding the Bruce R. McConkie reference--that blood atonement could only be practiced when church & state were merged--in early Utah, church & state were merged.

One of the chief Danites, Bill Hickman, spilled the beans about the murders he'd been told to commit by the brethren. You can read his accounts at:

http://antimormon.8m.com/hickmanindex.html

[_asbestosman]

Regarding the Bruce R. McConkie reference--that blood atonement could only be practiced when church & state were merged--in early Utah, church & state were merged.

I wish Elder McConkie were still around. Then he could explain how it was supposed to work among the Nephites. The Nephites didn't execute Korihor--they just had God strike him dumb.

[_Pahoran]

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.

And so did I. I was simply explaining (1) why I won't be discussing the matter in any more detail, and (2) why I would disdain any attempts to elicit any descriptions or expositions on the subject.

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.

I suggest you review Matthew 7:6.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Who Knows]

I suggest you review Matthew 7:6.

Yeah, the penalties were such 'pearls' that they took them out of the ritual. They must have been 'too' sacred.

[_rcrocket]

Rollie says: A BYU professor of Church History, Gustive O. Larsen, seems to back up Lee's story, when he wrote in 1958:: "To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his stepdaughter by a bishop's court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] Reformation."

Utah Historical Quarterly, January 1958, p. 62 n. 39 (all bold mine for emphasis)

There are problems with what you have posted.

First, you have posted material and cited it as original when, in fact, you were cutting and pasting from a secondary source without attribution. While that may be sufficient for the rubes who inhabit this board it isn't for me or anybody else who reads with a discriminating eye.

Second, the quote has nothing to do with John D. Lee's quote which begins your post. Lee did not refer to this event in his memoirs.

Third, you have misquoted the UHQ material. The word "the" is missing from before the word "reputable" which changes the tone of Larson's supposed endorsement which you so valued. Slightly.

Fourth, Larson does not provide any reference to this quote. Read in context in the article, he is just quoting rumor.

Fifth, your post relies heavily upon material from Lee's confessions. This material comes from a portion of Lee's confession which one of Lee's biographers characterizes thusly: "I have excluded . . . a section of Confession which is not about Lee's life, and which seems to be of questionable authenticity." Samuel Nyal Henrie, editor, Writings of John D. Lee (Tucson, Arizona: 2002), p. 9.

I can cut and paste the entire article in an email to you but I will not post copyrighted material on a board. The copyright might have expired by now, but I'm not taking chances.

P

[_Rollo Tomasi]

First, you have posted material and cited it as original when, in fact, you were cutting and pasting from a secondary source without attribution. While that may be sufficient for the rubes who inhabit this board it isn't for me or anybody else who reads with a discriminating eye.

I read his quote in different sources; other than the "the" discussed below, how is the quote inaccurate (since you have a copy of Larsen's actual article)?

Second, the quote has nothing to do with John D. Lee's quote which begins your post. Lee did not refer to this event in his memoirs.

Other than the name of the executed, the stories closely match, which is why many view them as recounting the same incident.

Third, you have misquoted the UHQ material. The word "the" is missing from before the word "reputable" which changes the tone of Larson's supposed endorsement which you so valued. Slightly.

Thank you for that correction.

Fourth, Larson does not provide any reference to this quote. Read in context in the article, he is just quoting rumor.

This is precisely why I asked you to look at your copy of the article (which I don't have). Does Larsen state that he is simply "quoting rumor"? Or is that your interpretation?

Fifth, your post relies heavily upon material from Lee's confessions. This material comes from a portion of Lee's confession which one of Lee's biographers characterizes thusly: "I have excluded . . . a section of Confession which is not about Lee's life, and which seems to be of questionable authenticity." Samuel Nyal Henrie, editor, Writings of John D. Lee (Tucson, Arizona: 2002), p. 9.

What was the basis for Henrie so concluding? The time and place of the alleged execution certainly puts Lee in the vicinity (as well as his being associated with the executioners in the MMM just the month before).

I can cut and paste the entire article in an email to you but I will not post copyrighted material on a board. The copyright might have expired by now, but I'm not taking chances.

I would appreciate that. You can just cut and paste it in a personal message to me via this bb. Many thanks.

[_desert_vulture]

We cannot lay the blame for the incorrect doctrine of blood atonement at Brigham Young's feet only. Joseph Smith actually initiated the doctrine in Nauvoo, and Brigham Young simply followed and amplified the teaching. Here's a tidbit for all of us rubes. Quoting Sandra and Gerald Tanner: "In 'The Mormon hierarchy: Extensions of Power', Vol. 2, pages 241-261, Dr. Quinn presented compelling evidence showing that "blood atonement" was endorsed by church leaders and actually practiced by the Mormon people. . . official LDS sources show that as early as 1843 Joseph Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins.(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pages 246-247)."

I guess only a hick like me would believe anything written by Dr. Quinn, eh?

[_rcrocket]

We cannot lay the blame for the incorrect doctrine of blood atonement at Brigham Young's feet only. Joseph Smith actually initiated the doctrine in Nauvoo, and Brigham Young simply followed and amplified the teaching. Here's a tidbit for all of us rubes. Quoting Sandra and Gerald Tanner: "In 'The Mormon hierarchy: Extensions of Power', Vol. 2, pages 241-261, Dr. Quinn presented compelling evidence showing that "blood atonement" was endorsed by church leaders and actually practiced by the Mormon people. . . official LDS sources show that as early as 1843 Joseph Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins.(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pages 246-247)."

I guess only a hick like me would believe anything written by Dr. Quinn, eh?

I like Dr. Quinn's works and routinely rely upon them. However, I do so cautiously as his Power and Magical works did not endure much peer review, at least as the WSJ says. And I have chased down some of his cites involving my own ancestors and found him to be overreaching.