Should ex-Mormons continue to wear their garments?

[_Yoda]

Joseph taught that the Law of Sacrifice must be restored for at least one sacrifice in this dispensation to fulfill the restoration of all things. Note, this is not the restoration of the Law of Moses but the return of the Abrahamic sacrifice. Joseph taught that this would not be a common practice and perhaps only one sacrifice would be made.

Where did Joseph teach this? Do you have a reference? Is it in the Journal of Discourses or the D&C?

[_The Nehor]

Where did Joseph teach this? Do you have a reference? Is it in the Journal of Discourses or the D&C?

It's not in the D&C or the Journal of Discourses. I believe I read it in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, a book I don't have access to but I might be able to find it quoted.

I found the reference in an old Institute manual with some annoying ellipses.

"It is generally supposed that sacrifice (meaning blood sacrifice) was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, priveleges, and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood.....(I believe this portion continued and pointed out that the statutes of the Law of Moses with all it's observances was not to be returned)

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the Sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings" -Joseph Smith (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

[_Runtu]

It's not in the D&C or the Journal of Discourses. I believe I read it in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, a book I don't have access to but I might be able to find it quoted.

I found the reference in an old Institute manual with some annoying ellipses.

"It is generally supposed that sacrifice (meaning blood sacrifice) was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, priveleges, and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood.....(I believe this portion continued and pointed out that the statutes of the Law of Moses with all it's observances was not to be returned)

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the Sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings" -Joseph Smith (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

Doesn't this contradict the bit in the temple about how the "posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ offered up the first fruits of the field, and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood"?

[_Blixa]

Brigham Young made reference to the return of animal sacrifice in what I think could be called the inaugurating speech of the Reformation in 1856. Wilford Woodruff records that in his sermon in the SLC bowery, Young, "rebuked the sins of the people. He said that the blood of Heifers lambs Doves &c would again be offered for certain sins but for some sins o blood would be acceptable except the life & blood of the individual."

If I recall correctly, I've also read BY making reference to altars for (potential?) animal sacrifice being planned for the SLC temple, but I don't have a citation for that at the moment.

(I don't have a copy of WW's Journals unfortunately, so I am quoting WW from David Bigler's Forgotten Kingdom, page 123, if anyone wants a reference.)

[_Runtu]

Brigham Young made reference to the return of animal sacrifice in what I think could be called the inaugurating speech of the Reformation in 1856. Wilford Woodruff records that in his sermon in the SLC bowery, Young, "rebuked the sins of the people. He said that the blood of Heifers lambs Doves &c would again be offered for certain sins but for some sins o blood would be acceptable except the life & blood of the individual."

If I recall correctly, I've also read BY making reference to altars for (potential?) animal sacrifice being planned for the SLC temple, but I don't have a citation for that at the moment.

(I don't have a copy of WW's Journals unfortunately, so I am quoting WW from David Bigler's Forgotten Kingdom, page 123, if anyone wants a reference.)

I've heard this taught over the years, but it always seemed like it contradicted what was said in the temple. Or am I misinterpreting the word "ended"?

[_Blixa]

It IS a contradiction. But as you well know, that's the standard MO of this religion of "continuing revelation."

[_Doctor Steuss]

Brigham Young made reference to the return of animal sacrifice in what I think could be called the inaugurating speech of the Reformation in 1856. Wilford Woodruff records that in his sermon in the SLC bowery, Young, "rebuked the sins of the people. He said that the blood of Heifers lambs Doves &c would again be offered for certain sins but for some sins o blood would be acceptable except the life & blood of the individual."

If I recall correctly, I've also read BY making reference to altars for (potential?) animal sacrifice being planned for the SLC temple, but I don't have a citation for that at the moment.

(I don't have a copy of WW's Journals unfortunately, so I am quoting WW from David Bigler's Forgotten Kingdom, page 123, if anyone wants a reference.)

I've heard this taught over the years, but it always seemed like it contradicted what was said in the temple. Or am I misinterpreting the word "ended"?

I haven’t hooked up the temple action yet, so I’m not sure what is said (and I’d prefer not knowing please). But in regards to animal sacrifice…

D&C 84:20-31, D&C 13:1, D&C 124:39, and D&C 128: 24 might shed light.

Joseph Smith had this to say (from TPJS, pp. 172-73)

“It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. We frequently have mention made of the offering of sacrifice by the servants of the Most High in ancient days, prior to the law of Moses; which ordinances will be continued when the Priesthood is restored with all its authority, power and blessings.


Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of the Priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and deliver the keys of the Priesthood, in order that all the ordinances may be attended to in righteousness. It is true that the Savior had authority and power to bestow this blessing; but the sons of Levi were too prejudiced. "And I will send Elijah the Prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord," etc., etc. Why send Elijah? Because he holds the keys of authority to administer in all the ordinances of the Priesthood; and without the authority is given, the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness.

It is a very prevalent opinion that the sacrifices which were offered were entirely consumed. This was not the case; if you read Leviticus 2:2-3, you will observe that the priests took a part as a memorial and offered it up before the Lord, while the remainder was kept for the maintenance of the priests; so that the offerings and sacrifices are not all consumed upon the altar—but the blood is sprinkled, and the fat and certain other portions are consumed.


These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass? It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.

It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time? The Priesthood has descended in a regular line from father to son, through their succeeding generations. (See Book of Doctrine and Covenants.) (October 5, 1840.) DHC 4:207-212.”

There are also several other instances of this teaching (such as Heber C. Kimball’s journal, Oliver B. Huntington [in They Knew the Prophet by Andrus], journal of Wandle Mace, ).

I think the best quote on the subject is this First Presidency Statement (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and J. Reuben clark, Jr.) – from Messages of the First Presidency 5:327:

"The members of the Church are reminded that the practice of polygamous or plural marriage is not the only law whose suspension has been authorized by the Lord and adopted by the people. The law of animal sacrifice, in force in ancient Israel, has been suspended, but the Prophet Joseph asserted it would be again restored, and such is the effect of the statement made by John the Baptist when restoring the Aaronic priesthood. The law of the United Order has likewise been suspended, to be reestablished in the due time of the Lord. Other laws might be mentioned."

[_The Nehor]

Brigham Young made reference to the return of animal sacrifice in what I think could be called the inaugurating speech of the Reformation in 1856. Wilford Woodruff records that in his sermon in the SLC bowery, Young, "rebuked the sins of the people. He said that the blood of Heifers lambs Doves &c would again be offered for certain sins but for some sins o blood would be acceptable except the life & blood of the individual."

If I recall correctly, I've also read BY making reference to altars for (potential?) animal sacrifice being planned for the SLC temple, but I don't have a citation for that at the moment.

(I don't have a copy of WW's Journals unfortunately, so I am quoting WW from David Bigler's Forgotten Kingdom, page 123, if anyone wants a reference.)

I've heard this taught over the years, but it always seemed like it contradicted what was said in the temple. Or am I misinterpreting the word "ended"?

Having something end does not exclude it beginning again.

[_Runtu]

Having something end does not exclude it beginning again.

Well, these verses suggest that sacrifice won't be restored:

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.
13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.
15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

Yes, something that ends can begin again, but can something be "last" and yet not the last?

[_The Nehor]

Having something end does not exclude it beginning again.

Well, these verses suggest that sacrifice won't be restored:

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.
13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.
15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

Yes, something that ends can begin again, but can something be "last" and yet not the last?

In answer to your last question, yes. The great and last day, for one. Will time cease on Judgment Day?

The verses you reference refer to the Law of Moses sacrifices which differed from the pre-Mosaic sacrifices used by Adam, Noah, and Abraham. I believe the verses quoted are limited to the Mosaic sacrifices.

It is also important to note that it was not an end to sacrifice but a change in the nature of the sacrifice itself as Jesus lays out in 3 Nephi.