Saints Mormon Reformation Part 3

Viewpoint on Mormonism, the program that examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a biblical perspective. Viewpoint on Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism Research Ministry. Since 1979, Mormonism Research Ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now your host for today's Viewpoint on Mormonism. What was expected of Latter-day Saints during what was called the Mormon Reformation? Welcome to this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism.

I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry, and with me today is Eric Johnson, my colleague at MRM. We are looking at the book Saints, No Unhallowed Hand. This is volume two that covers the years 1846 to 1893 in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This book was published in 2020, and it's supposed to look at the history of the LDS Church during this time period. However, it doesn't go into a lot of real strict details, which I find to be quite frustrating at times. But it does, in the endnotes, make reference to a book that was written by a Mormon by the name of Paul Peterson.

It came out in the year 2016. It was titled The Mormon Reformation, and there was what was known as a Mormon Reformation Catechism, according to this book, dated from 1856 to 1857. And in the book, there's a picture of what looks like a flyer that probably Latter-day Saints had, and there were questions on this flyer. The title says, Questions to be Asked the Latter-day Saints.

The caption to this picture in his book says this is the list that members, quote, measured their level of worthiness. And in a previous show when discussing the Mormon Reformation, I made it a point, and I think it needs to be emphasized again, Eric, that the Mormon Reformation was all about doing works, doing works, doing works, whereas the Christian Reformation was just the opposite. It was an emphasis on the fact that we are justified by faith, not by our works.

So here we see a huge difference between how the word Reformation is being used, one by the LDS people and one by the Christians during the Christian Reformation, which takes place around the 1500s. In this list, here's some of the things that it has to say. And the reason I want to read some of these things, folks, is because we have been criticized by Latter-day Saints when we say that in Mormon salvation, it's like there's a number of things in boxes that need to be checked off. Once you've checked off all the boxes, then you can feel confident you're going to receive exaltation in the next life.

But can you? Because is every box checked in anybody's life? And you would think it would have to be if the Doctrine and Covenants is telling us the truth in Section 1, where it says that you must repent, keep the commandments, and then you are forgiven. If you don't truly repent, if you don't keep all of the commandments, you can't expect to be forgiven.

Well, here's some of the things that were listed in this paper titled, Questions to be Asked the Latter-day Saints. Have you taken and made use of property not your own without the consent of the owner? Have you lied about or maliciously misrepresented any person or thing?

Have you borrowed anything that you have not returned or paid for? Have you borne false witness against your neighbor? Have you taken the name of the deity in vain? It almost sounds like a modified version of the Ten Commandments, doesn't it? But then it says, do you pay your tithing promptly?

Do you teach your family the gospel of salvation? Do you speak against your brethren or against any principle taught in the Bible, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, revelations given through Joseph Smith, the prophet and the presidency of the church as now organized? So you see, it does go far beyond what we would find in Exodus when it comes to the Ten Commandments. It has a lot of other details in it that Latter-day Saints were expected to adhere to. Well, the reason for the Mormon Reformation was, of course, the Latter-day Saints were not adhering to a lot of these things. And so this was a time during the history of the LDS Church to get the Mormon people back in line to do what was necessary in order to achieve that exaltation that they sought.

As we mentioned in yesterday's show, the problem that we have with this edition of Saints when describing the Reformation is it says some things that it doesn't clearly explain. For instance, it says that at times Brigham and others had even drawn on Old Testament scriptures to teach that certain grievous sins could be forgiven only through the shedding of the sinner's blood. And as we mentioned yesterday, and it bears repeating today, there are no Old Testament scriptures that teach that. That may have been something Brigham Young added to some scriptures, but that's not what we find in the Old Testament. Then it goes on to say that such teachings hark back to the hellfire and brimstone language of Protestant revival preachers who tried to frighten sinners into reform. True, a lot of these Protestant revival preachers were teaching about the dangers of hell and judgment should a person die in their sins.

But nowhere do we find these preachers saying that you could be forgiven by shedding your blood. And then it goes on to say Brigham understood that he sometimes let his fiery sermons go too far, and he did not intend for people to be put to death for their sins. I don't know if you could draw that conclusion based on what Brigham Young actually taught or what Jedediah M. Grant actually taught. And Jedediah M. Grant was a member of the first presidency under Brigham Young, and this book gives the impression that it was Jedediah M. Grant who was the one figure behind this movement known as the Mormon Reformation. Bill, you have an article on our website MRM.org slash blood atonement with a hyphen between blood and atonement, and you list some of the sins that Brigham Young said blood should be shed of that individual. Well when it comes to this idea that Brigham Young was not really intending for people to be put to death for their sins, what do you do with this statement by Brigham Young that he made on February 8, 1857? And this can be found in the Journal of Discourses volume 4, page 220. I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins.

Let me stop you there. I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. Notice, folks, he's not merely saying they were slain as capital punishment for certain sins. He is saying they were righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. Now based on that sentence, how am I supposed to understand what it says here on pages 245 and 246 of the book Saints? Brigham understood that he sometimes let his fiery sermons go too far, and he did not intend for people to be put to death for their sins. Does that statement support what I just read from the top of page 246 in the book Saints?

It doesn't seem to be supporting that. But what did Brigham Young go on to say in this sermon that he gave on February 8, 1857? He said, 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 neighbor 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.

Bill, let me ask you this question. Would you like to have a neighbor who believes in what Brigham Young is teaching here? Well, this is what we were talking about yesterday because the book says leaders had spoken harshly of apostates and locals who were not members of the church feeling intimidated. Some people left the territory.

This is on page 245. It would seem quite possible that words like this could in fact intimidate people to leave. A mere call to repent and do what is right, I can't imagine that kind of preaching causing people to leave a territory. That would make me, I would think, want to stay knowing that these people are supposed to be living righteous lives. But this goes a little bit far.

Well, I think of good neighbors as somebody who maybe is going to bring me a nice loaf of bread that just came out of the oven, not coming with knives trying to stab me to death, but they're trying to help you because if your blood is spilled, then you can atone for your sins. And here's what Brigham Young says that you have to wonder, what did he really mean? He says the wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principles being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. And I can just see a Mormon saying, see, it wasn't in full force. And my response would be, describe for me what full force means.

That's the question we need to ask because Brigham Young couches it with the phrase before it. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principles being in full force. Well, that would be the United States.

No doubt that would be England. Let's say the European countries at that time, even the African countries at that time. It's not in full force, but I'm sure Brigham Young thought, well, it's certainly in force here. Otherwise why did he say what we cited earlier? I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins.

Were they righteously slain or weren't they? And what we had brought about earlier, as far as biblical examples, he doesn't give us any biblical examples. He's just giving us examples that apparently happened in his day, but we have no biblical precedent to be able to say that this was a righteous doctrine. And let's look back again at what Brigham Young said, even after the portion where he says the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. Then he says this, this is loving our neighbor 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.

Who makes that determination? If you live next door to a person who believed what Brigham Young said, would that intimidate you, Eric? Yes, it would. This would definitely intimidate me because I'm thinking, oh, wait, my neighbor wants me to be saved. Is this the way he's going to accomplish this? And again, let's go back to what Brigham Young said about it not being in full force. If Brigham Young is really saying we're not doing anything like this now, and I don't know what kind of evidence there is to really support that, but let's just go by what Brigham Young is saying. If in fact it's not being done in full force, why is he encouraging people to help save their neighbors? That's in the here and now, not in the hereafter he's telling them to help their neighbors. He's telling them to help their neighbors by spilling their blood on the earth now. Notice a citation like that is not given in Saints. And that's what bothers me about this. I think they could have done a much better job trying to refute what is the obvious in the statements that we are reading today and are going to read in tomorrow's show. We're going to be again looking at chapter 17 in the book, Saints, No Unhallowed Hand. I'll see you in the next one.