MORMON BLOOD ATONEMENT 1884 Charles Penrose

Blood Atonement in Mormonism is Established as fact. it is well attested to. it was this doctrine that contributed to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This is from Charles Penrose, 1884, The Mormon Polygamist and Apologist for the Mormon Hierarchy

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Blood
• Atonement
• Mountain
• Meadows
• Massacre

[orlovna2]

I have an "old" (not that old, really) paperback set of 8 volumes of THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, printed for the first time, in paperback, in 1978. That is the year that I bought the set. There are really only 7 volumes, but an 8th volume is just "indexing", for the other 7.

On page296, Vol. 5, of The History of the Church, we see where Joseph Smith, himself, promoted the doctrine of BLOOD ATONEMENT, at a Nauvoo City Council meeting, held on Saturday, the 4th of March, 1843.

[IExposeMormonism]

@orlovna2 I recently saw the Ppr version on ebay. I don't have it But I do have WHitney, Bancroft, 2 RLDS and another Mormon one, all c. 1900-ish. What good is Mormon History? All they do is make up lies as they go along and leave you to sort out the truth!

[sldeyo]

Excellent post.

[IExposeMormonism]

@sldeyo I found "Blood Atonement and the Origin of Polygamy" 1905, by the Living Mormon Prophet, Joseph F smith. And Posted it in a couple of versions. One with Penrose and MMMassacre....Of course, according to Penrose, the two are not related. But they are in the same book. Must be a Mormon Miracle.

[001hinata001]

i was born mormon, i never heard of blood atonement until i was 14 on youtube.

[IExposeMormonism]

I guess thats the good and the bad in youtube. You find out more than you want sooner than you want. At least you found the truth. keep searching. I have other posts on polygamy and blood atonement. see my most recent ones. (My movie maker is messed up or I would have more posts)

[orlovna2]

Going from Joseph Smith's 1843 promoting of the doctrine of Blood Atonement, backward, to 1832, we see (on a different note), that he, Smith, prophesied the Civil War. (He did not say even what decade the Civil War would begin).

PART of that prophesy said that (the war) would signal "the end of all nations".

SORRY: that never came to pass, at all!

Applying Deuteronomy 18:20-22, to Smith's prophesy, we see that--if he had EVER been a true prophet--he FAILED THE TEST, right there, with that!

[orlovna2]

@fairldsguy

ADDENDUM VI

I think that this is a "caveat", to what I said, earlier.

With good reason, I referred to "the ancients who actually prophesied" as "PROPHETS": that is the qualifier, in Deuteronomy.

BUT, the wording does not refer to "supposed prophets" or to "suspected prophets". It refers to those who had at least ONCE prophesied a thing that came true: after all, that is how they came to be called "prophet", in the first place.

God was telling the people to ALWAYS TEST things!

[orlovna2]

@fairldsguy

ADDENDUM V

I will give just one example, from the life of Rabbi Schneersohn (whose name sounds German, but who lived in Nikolaev, Ukraine, until emigrating to Israel).

Schneersohn was visiting an Israeli soldier, who was being hospitalized, in a comatose condition, from a bullet wound, to the brain.

(Usually a mortal wound, on the battle field).

The rabbi looked at the man in a coma and prophesied a full recovery! (NOTE: This is not "faith healing")

Prophecy fulfilled!

[orlovna2]

@fairldsguy

ADDENDUM IV

I will tell you the name of a man who I, myself, think was a prophet (by the definitions and qualifying criteria of Deut. 18:20-22:

Rebbe (Rabbi) Menachem Mendel Schneerson (alternately, Schneersohn), who was a Lubavitcher Rebbe of Chassidic (Hassidc) Judaism, for 40 years.

---1902-1994

I am not Jewish. You don't have to be a Jew, to apply the test, nor to see that Rabbi Schneersohn actually prophesied (and passed the test!)

To be continued...

[orlovna2]

@fairldsguy

ADDENDUM III

That is the whole upshot of Deuteronomy 18:20-22 !!

IF a (real) prophet speaks presumptuously, THAT PROPHET SHALL DIE!.

There is no "room" that God gives to those jack-wagons for "speaking as a man". God was not trifling with them, anciently, and He is not doing so, now, either!

ODDLY, only "if" a man had prophesied, on a previous occasion, was he called a prophet: a prophet, by definition, is "one who prophesies".

Mormon "pro$its" don't prophesy!

[orlovna2]

@fairldsguy

ADDENDUM II

Now, I am going to get even more BOLD, here, and ask you (and all mormons who wish to read this):

WHY hasn't a so-called mormon prophet prophesied, in the name of the Lord, in the last 130 years (since circa 1880 and Wilford Woodruff, as some would point out)?

ANSWER: Because they are afraid that, if they do speak "presumptuously" (or, in another words, "SPEAKING AS A MAN"), the God of Heaven will strike them down, to the ground:

for, "THAT PROPHET SHALL DIE!"

[orlovna2]

@fairldsguy

ADDENDUM:

I will also tell you "why" I see Deut. as giving the people a way to test what a "true prophet" says. The first thing that comes to mind is that ancient Israel would not have believed "wizards", anyway. (There were "wizards & scorcerers", in the ancient world).

In fact, the word "prophet", and the word commonly used for "false" prophet (viz, wizard-scorcerer), were completely different, in the Hebrew.

"FALLEN" Prophet is the subject, then, of Deuteronomy 18:20-22

[orlovna2]

@fairldsguy

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Joseph Smith "fails the test". BUT, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 is actually talking about true prophets who then go on to speak "presumptuously" (or, out of their own vanity, instead of speaking God's own words). So, the "test" applies to them as FALLEN prophets!

If a "prophet" (a real one) speaks presumptuously, THAT PROPHET SHALL DIE!

(God was not interested in punishing "false" prophets: just real ones who had "gone bad".)

[orlovna2]

@IExposeMormonism

That is interesting that you would refer to a "circa 1900" date. All of the footnotes (in my 1978 edition) come right out of 1902: referencing the "standard works" (and other sources), from that year.

There is at least some degree of "consistency to the lunacy", there!

LOL

But, at the same time, it underscores the concerted efforts & the lengths to which the infamous PR "arm" of the church goes, to "sanitize" real history: and therefore to create a facade (a false front).