Skip to content

3 Views on the Atonement in 1856

May 29, 2010

In this post I thought it would be interesting to compare what preachers from each of our faith traditions were saying around the same time frame on the same subject. All of the following sermon excerpts come from the same year, within just a few months of each other, on the subject of the atonement.  Spurgeon and Finney are only two of the 19th century’s prominent and influential Christian leaders; they just happened to be the ones from whom I was able to find sermons with relative ease for the year 1856.

Mormonism claims to be a restoration of Christianity, so I believe it is very important to investigate the roots of the Mormon tradition and, in particular, the claim of prophetic authority. As you read through each of the following sermons, please prayerfully consider not only the teachings of these men, but also the men themselves.  Which men strike you as the most filled with God’s Spirit of love and grace?  Which ones appear to be off course and out of line with Biblical teaching?

Charles Spurgeon

(Penal Substitution View)

Charles Haddon (C.H.) Spurgeon (1834–1892) was a British Particular Baptist preacher who remains highly influential among Christians of different denominations. In his lifetime, Spurgeon preached to around 10,000,000 people, often up to 10 times each week at different places. His sermons have been translated into many languages. Spurgeon was the pastor of the congregation of the New Park Street Chapel (later the Metropolitan Tabernacle) in London for 38 years. In 1857, he founded an orphanage which later became a charity organization called Spurgeon’s which now works globally. He also founded Spurgeon’s College, which was named after him posthumously. Arguably, no other author, Christian or otherwise, has more material in print than C.H. Spurgeon. [1]

The Day of Atonement

Charles Spurgeon

August 10, 1856

The Jews had many striking ceremonies which marvellously set forth the death of Jesus Christ as the great expiation of our guilt and the salvation of our souls. One of the chief of these was the day of atonement [Lev. 16], which I believe was pre-eminently intended to typify that great day of vengeance of our God, which was also the great day of acceptance of our souls, when Jesus Christ “died, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God.” That day of atonement happened only once a year, to teach us that only once should Jesus Christ die…

First, we shall consider the person who made the atonement… And at the outset, we remark that Aaron, the high priest, did it. “Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place; with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.” Inferior priests slaughtered lambs; other priests at other times did almost all the work of the sanctuary; but on this day nothing was done by any one, as a part of the business of the great day of atonement, except by the high priest.

Old rabbinical traditions tell us that everything on that day was done by him, even the lighting of the candles, and the fires, and the incense, and all the offices that were required, and that, for a fortnight beforehand, he was obliged to go into the tabernacle to slaughter the bullocks and assist in the work of the priests and Levites, that he might be prepared to do the work which was unusual to him. All the labour was left to him.

So, beloved, Jesus Christ, the High Priest, and he only, works the atonement. There are other priests, for “he hath made us priests and kings unto God.” Every Christian is a priest to offer sacrifice of prayer and praise unto God, but none save the High Priest must offer atonement; he, and he alone, must go within the vail; he must slaughter the goat and sprinkle the blood; for though thanksgiving is shared in by all Christ’s elect body, atonement remains alone to him, the High Priest.

Charles Finney

(Governmental View)

Charles Grandison Finney (1792–1875) was a Presbyterian and Congregationalist figure in the Second Great Awakening. His influence during this period was enough that he has been called The Father of Modern Revivalism. Finney’s presentation of the gospel message reached thousands and influenced many communities. In addition to becoming a popular Christian evangelist, Finney was involved with the abolitionist movement and frequently denounced slavery from the pulpit. In 1835 he became a professor and later president of Oberlin College from 1851 to 1866. Oberlin became an early movement to end slavery and was among the first American colleges to co-educate blacks and women with white men. Finney was a third-degree Master Mason who left Freemasonry after converting to Christ, claiming Freemasonry was incompatible with Christian beliefs. He became a staunch opponent of Freemasonry and wrote extensively on the subject.

On the Atonement

Charles Finney

July 30, 1856

Now, if God be holy and good, it must be that he disapproves wrong-doing, and will punish it. The penalty of his law is pronounced against it. Under this penalty, we stand condemned, and have no relief save through some adequate atonement, satisfactory to God, because safe to the interests of his kingdom….

The atonement is a governmental expedient to sustain law without the execution of its penalty on the sinner. Of course, it must always be a difficult thing in any government to sustain the authority of law, and the respect due to it, without the execution of penalty. Yet God has accomplished it most perfectly.

A distinction must here be made between public and retributive justice. The latter visits on the head of the individual sinner a punishment corresponding to the nature of his offence. The former, public justice, looks only toward the general good, and must do that which will secure the authority and influence of law, as well as the infliction of the penalty would to it. It may accept a substitute, provided it be equally effective to the support of law and the ensuring of obedience.  Public justice, then, may be satisfied in one of two ways, to wit–either by the full execution of the penalty, or by some substitute, which shall answer the ends of government at least equally well….

The sacrifice made on Calvary is to be understood as God’s offering to public justice–God himself giving up his Son to death, and this Son pouring forth his life’s blood in expiation for sin–thus throwing open the folding gates of mercy to a sinning, lost race. This must be regarded as manifesting his love to sinners. This is God’s ransom provided for them. Look at the state of the case. The supreme Law-Giver, and indeed the government of the universe, had been scouted by rebellion;–of course there can be no pardon till this dishonor done to God and his law is thoroughly washed away. This is done by God’s free-will offering of his own Son for these great sins.

Brigham Young & Jedediah Grant

(Blood Atonement View)

Brigham Young (1801–1877) was a leader in the Latter Day Saint movement and a settler of the western United States. He was the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1847 until his death and was the founder of Salt Lake City and the first governor of Utah Territory, United States. Brigham Young University was named in his honor. Young had a variety of nicknames, among the most popular being “American Moses,” (alternatively the “Modern Moses” or the “Mormon Moses”) because, like the Biblical figure, Young led his followers, the Mormon pioneers, in an exodus through a desert, to what they saw as a promised land. Young was dubbed by his followers the “Lion of the Lord” for his bold personality, and was also commonly called “Brother Brigham” by Latter-day Saints. Young was a polygamist and was involved in controversies regarding black people and the Priesthood, the Utah War, and the Mountain Meadows massacre.

Jedediah Morgan Grant (1816–1856) was a leader and an apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was member of the First Council of the Seventy from 1845 to 1854. He also served in the First Presidency under Church President Brigham Young from 1854 to 1856. He is known for his fiery speeches during the Reformation of 1856, earning the nickname, “Brigham’s Sledgehammer.” Like many early Latter-day Saints, Jedediah Grant practiced plural marriage.  He had a total of seven wives and 13 children. His son Heber J. Grant became the seventh President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

THE PEOPLE OF GOD DISCIPLINED BY TRIALS – ATONEMENT BY THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD – OUR HEAVENLY FATHER – A PRIVILEGE GIVEN TO ALL THE MARRIED SISTERS IN UTAH

Brigham Young

September 21, 1856

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them…

I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.

REBUKING INIQUITY

Jedediah Grant

September 21, 1856

I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye.

You may think that I am not teaching you Bible doctrine, but what says the apostle Paul? I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood.

Talk about old clay; I would rather have clay from a new bank than some that we have had clogging the wheels for the last nineteen years. They are a perfect nuisance, and I want them cut off, and the sooner it is done the better….

We have been trying long enough with this people, and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word, but in deed.

____________________

[1] All bios in this post are excerpted in whole or in part from Wikipedia.

Advertisements
25 Comments leave one →
  1. May 29, 2010 6:20 am

    What a fantastic and most useful post! Thanks for taking the time to do this 🙂

  2. May 29, 2010 3:03 pm

    You think this is a comprehensive description of Brigham Young’s views on the Atonement?

  3. Aaron permalink
    May 29, 2010 7:26 pm

    Seth, do you really think anything that anyone says is even meant to be a comprehensive description of anything in a blog post? Come on, man 🙂

  4. Ethan permalink
    May 29, 2010 7:51 pm

    Yup, Cherry picking. And this doesn’t say anything about the separation of church and state which is the context for such an approach to capital punishment. At least in Israel there was no separation and the God of Heaven routinely called for death by chucking blunt stones at peoples heads no less.

    It makes me wonder if the poster is against all forms of capital punishment and why.

  5. sdrogers permalink
    May 29, 2010 8:11 pm

    No Aaron, but the selection, given the past history of this blog looks suspiciously like exactly such an attempt. Yet one more attempt to show why Mormons suck, and Evangelicals are cool – via selective reading.

  6. May 29, 2010 9:39 pm

    Ethan,

    Is the civil law of the OT still binding today?

  7. Ethan permalink
    May 29, 2010 10:02 pm

    Gundeck,

    First off, this topic is academic since there is no evidence anything of the sort was ever practiced in Mormon history.

    OT law is not in force today because there is no longer a theocratic state established by God on Earth that is responsible for the civil law enforcement of it’s political jurasdiction. Mormonism, for all of it’s ethnic implications, is not a nation. So called “blood atonement” was always meant to be understood in the context of civil law. In a theocracy, such as ancient Israel, religious law and capital punishment where the same thing. Most critics don’t bother to put that in the footnotes.

    Would you have considered stoning under the OT law to be blood atonement?

  8. Ethan permalink
    May 29, 2010 10:10 pm

    Jessica!

    Blood atonement? Really? Of all the savory options in the critics playbook, you dredge this up? This one is sort of a dead horse. It’s been pretty thoroughly rebutted. At worst it falls under the speculation category. It’s so peripheral.

    Is it too late to change topics?

  9. May 30, 2010 12:53 am

    Take a breath Ethan. I asked a simple question.

    To answer your question, no blood spilled by stoning would not function as a blood atonement or have any propitiatory affect.

  10. May 31, 2010 3:25 am

    Jessica,’

    Interesting comparison.

    BTW, I love Spurgeon. My wife bought me the complete set of his sermons a couple of Christmas’ ago. Amazing how many sermons that man preached.

    Darrell

  11. June 1, 2010 2:47 pm

    (1) Everybody needs to visit the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London and then explore the bookstore. Peter Masters, today, carries on a Fundamentalistic, Baptistic, Reformed, Calvinistic tradition. Spurgeon was a strong defender of PSA during the Downgrade Controversy.

    (2) Everybody needs to be aware of the doctrine and practice of Charles Finney. In America, he was one of the key men to influence my American Baptist lineage in the late 1800s. I have many of his sermons in The Independent published during his lifetime. He was the counter man to Jonathan Edwards. His sermons declared his public disagreement.

    (3) And everyone in the Intermountain I-15 Corridor should be thoroughly acquainted with Brigham Young and what he wrote. S.E. Idaho is marked by this man’s leadership.

    _____________

    Btw, Jessica, nice topic. Blood atonement is a fundamental doctrine in the book of Hebrews.

    “And without shedding of blood is no remission” – Heb. 9:22

  12. Ethan permalink
    June 4, 2010 7:55 pm

    Gundek,

    Christ was a proxy blood atonement. Where do you draw the line philosophically between what Christ and Brigham both taught? Is it only a true principle if a scapegoat is killed? And how can you be sure that the stoning (civic capital punishment) in the Bible was not a salvific measure in response to the violation of God’s law within a theocracy where religion and state were the same thing?

  13. June 4, 2010 10:31 pm

    Ethan,

    How can I be sure that there is no salvific merit to capitol punishment, even under theocratic Israel?

    First, I am unaware of any place in the Bible that assigns soteriological merit to capitol punishment. I am willing to look at any passages you recommend.

    Second, I believe that the sacrifices of the Levitical system pointed to Christ in a typological fashion and had no merit in and of themselves except for the building of faith in God. Remember the type is reveals and receives its meaning from the the archetype.

    Third, Brigham’s teaching is counter to the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice by claiming that there are “sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come…”

    Fourth, I believe that Brigham confuses the civil and ceremonial law, but I have not invested the time in studying his theology so I am only going by what little I have read. This much I know there is no merit in either the civil or ceremonial law apart from Christ and the demand for some form of über self atonement cannot be found in any part of the law.

    Fifth, Brigham assumes that Gods justice can be served by an imperfect sacrifice. Don’t overlook this, the ceremonial laws are clear about the quality required of a sacrifice

    Sixth, if the “wages of sin is death” how can the simple payment of what is owed be meritorious?

    Philosophically I am at a loss on how being on the receiving end of capitol punishment constitutes a sacrifice at all. Maybe you can help me understand that?

    John Owen explains that there are 4 parts to a sacrifice; 1 what is offered, 2 to whom is it offered, 3 by whom is it offered, and 4 for whom is it offered. I think that any reasonable comparison between the cross and a receipient of capitol punishment renders any possible parrellel pointless.

  14. Ethan permalink
    June 5, 2010 1:16 am

    Gundeck, This is how it makes sense to me. Consider two solutions to dealing with a crime:

    1. When an Israelite broke God’s law in a theocracy justice demanded a satisfying death (stoning a person).
    2. When a person (us) breaks God’s law anywhere else justice demands a satisfying death (Jesus on the Cross).

    Both satisfy the demands of divine justice. In both cases a payment has been made to God for a crime. If the stoning has no bearing on salvation, why not just scold the sinner and wait for the real sacrifice is Jesus? Now OUTSIDE of God’s official theocracy capitol punishment is not salvific. Wasn’t Israelite law also God’s law?

    CAVEAT: I am not saying that I think people can atone for themselves alone. Obviously Christ’s grace is vital. But what if there is a repentance step in blood atonement, any thoughts?

    The bible does not say if stoning has a salvific component. Therefore, any assumption we impose is outside the text. Just because it is silent does not mean there is not one. However, the one clear example of blood atonement we DO have (Christ) rules in favor of salvation via killing. Who wants Jesus dead anyway? Answer: Justice. That is capital punishment via proxy.

    Mark 3 and Matt 12 both make clear that Brigham was correct to say that there are sins for which forgiveness is impossible.

    Christ’s grace has always been conditional. Is it sufficient for those who reject Jesus? Accepting Christ is a measurable work. I assure you the grace of Jesus will be lost on Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. What would have happened to an Israelite who refused to offer a blood sacrifice? If butchering a lamb was merely intended to point to Christ, why was it a commandment? Anything God commands as “not optional” is by definition a requirement for salvation. Salvation via these sacrifices. Seems like Brigham is right at home in this paradigm.

  15. Ethan permalink
    June 5, 2010 1:18 am

    Note: I am admittedly shooting from the hip on this one. This makes sense to me. I welcome any constructive rebuttals from both sides.

  16. June 5, 2010 1:32 pm

    “In the Mosaic law the death penalty was inflicted for murder, Gen. 9:5, 6; Num. 35:16–21, 30–33; Deut. 17:6; adultery, Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:24; incest, Lev. 20:11, 12, 14; bestiality, Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15, 16; sodomy, Lev. 18:22; 20:13; incontinence, Deut. 22:21–24; rape of a betrothed virgin, Deut. 22:25; perjury, Zech. 5:4; kidnapping, Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7; upon a priest’s daughter, who committed fornication, Lev. 21:9; for witchcraft, Ex. 22:18; offering human sacrifice, Lev. 20:2–5; for striking or cursing father or mother, Ex. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9; disobedience to parents, Deut. 21:18–21; theft, Zech. 5:3, 4; blasphemy, Lev. 24:11–14, 16, 23; for Sabbath desecration, Ex. 35:2; Num. 15:32–36; for prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines, Deut. 13:1–10; sacrificing to false gods, Ex. 22:20; refusing to abide by the decision of court, Deut. 17:12” 1

    Of these, which ones is the sacrifice of Christ insufficient to atone for? Along the same line, which of these are blasphemes against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-30; Matt 12:31–37; Luke 12:10)? Is Christ’s sacrifice insufficient for blasphemes of the Holy Spirit, while capitol punishment is sufficient?

    Your comparison to Christ on the cross as a capital punishment by proxy fails to take into account the, the perfect obedience of Christ (what is offered), the holiness of God and the demands of a perfect sacrifice (to whom is it offered),the person and nature of Christ (by whom is it offered) eternal nature of the punishment we deserve for our sins against God (for whom is it offered).

    Carrying this a step further on one hand you have the perfect obedience of Christ compared to the sinful nature of the capitally punished (what is offered); the clear explanation of the propitiatory nature of Chris’s sacrifice (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2, 4:10) contrasted to the lack of clarity that a sacrifice has been asked for from the capitally punished or would be acceptable to God (to whom is it offered); Christ is the perfect High Priest offering His sacrifice (Heb 7) while it is not clear whom is offering the sacrifice in capital punishment (the state or the punished) or if the capitally punished are capable offering themselves (by whom is it offered); Christ’s sacrifice was offered for those who have faith in Him while it is debatable if a supposed capital punishment sacrifice would be for the state or the punished.

    I could go on but I am still at a loss how the theocratic state following the civil law can render to the capitally punished unwritten ceremonial law significance granting them merit for violating the moral law.

    1 Swanson, J., & Nave, O. (1994). New Nave’s. Oak Harbor

  17. June 5, 2010 1:48 pm

    I almost forgot, human sacrifice was verboten (Lev. 20:2–5) in theocratic Israel and punishable by death. Think carefully about the genocidal catch 22 Brigham’s peculation has created.

  18. Ethan permalink
    June 5, 2010 3:46 pm

    Gundek,

    I agree with all of your points. I’m not sure that is what Brigham is advocating per se. Maybe Seth can jump in here since he has a legal background.

    Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not implying by any stretch that any of these stonings is equivalent with the expiating (and of course, perfect) sacrifice of Christ. Christ’s atonement has a universal power that extends through all things and covers everyone who performs the work of accepting it.

    The OT laws raise an interesting question:

    If the civil Law of Israel was God’s spiritual law, why was a person stoned if it was not somehow for a spiritual benefit? Was it merely an American style execution for the good of society? I’m not so sure. I don’t have the answer but I doubt anything is done without heaven in view in God’s theocracy. Otherwise Israel’s system no better than Babylon.

    In other words, is “justice” in a theocracy for this Earth only, and why?

    And Brigham certainly was never advocating human sacrifice (random offering). If anything it would be closer to a capitol punishment for specific spiritual crimes in a theocracy. But always remember, it may well have been Brother Brigham was casually speculating and nothing more. This is all still academic as there was never proof it was ever done. Seems like we sensationlize things too much. Brigham may well be rolling his eyes now at the fomenting his little off the cuff observation has stirred up. Give a human a break. Hell’s bells indeed.

    Bruce McConkie cleared this up pretty well:
    http://www.shields-research.org/General/blood_atonement.htm

  19. June 5, 2010 3:51 pm

    Gundeck, these are good points, and I don’t think I necessarily agreed with Ethan’s analysis here.

    My understanding is that blood atonement was a way of articulating what was necessary for full repentance of the sinner. In cases of murder, for instance, it was believed that the death of the sinner was necessary for full repentance. Thus the execution was as much an act to redeem the sinner as for society to enact its vengeance, or to protect society from future crime, deterrence, etc. Not sure how fully I follow this line of theological logic, but it seems to have been the thinking once upon a time (and still around today – my dad believes in some version of it).

    But also keep in mind, that LDS thought has always viewed the REPENTANCE process as the way of INVOKING Christ’s Atonement.

    So to frame this as Christ’s Atonement being “insufficient” is to miss the mark. No one here is talking about Christ’s Atonement being “insufficient.” We’re merely discussing how it is invoked.

  20. June 5, 2010 8:01 pm

    Seth,

    You know that I am not going to start telling you what you believe. I hope that you understand that when McConkie says, “there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person” and lists murder along with blasphemy against the Holy Ghost from my perspective this means that the sacrifice of Christ is insufficient for the redemption of murder.

    How does the murderer invoke “Christ’s Atonement”? My understanding is that David will not receive exaltation. How does Paul for instance receive salvation?

    Properly understood repentance is essential to salvation, so much so that it is referred to as the “twin sister of faith”. The problem comes up when we decide that there must do some form of physical satisfaction for our sins in order to have proper repentance.

  21. June 5, 2010 8:03 pm

    Ethan,

    You are the one who has made the comparison to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and “capital punishment via proxy” implying some form of sacrificial significance to capital punishment, not me. I am not accusing Mormons of practicing human sacrifices and if you say that this was only Brigham’s speculation and not a prophetic declaration, that is fine by me. Although I think you are being a little dismissive by calling it “off the cuff”. Honestly I am more interested in how today’s LDS understand the law, I’ll let people who are more interested in historic LDS theology debate just how serious Brigham was about blood atonement.

    Why would the civil law of Israel be God’s spiritual law? Do we agree that the law can be divided into 3 parts, 1 the moral law; 2 the ceremonial law; and 3 the civil law. Why would God’s instruction to Israel on how it is to build buildings (Deut 22:8), distribute land (Num 26:55), or punish offenses (Lev 19:20) be at all spiritual?

  22. June 5, 2010 8:18 pm

    Gundeck, you may find the following discussion of the recent decision to pull McConkie’s book “Mormon Doctrine” from circulation interesting:

    http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/06/04/forgetting-mcconkie/

    I particularly liked comment #5 in the discussion from DKL:

    “I’ve heard a lot of people object to McConkie because he advanced an orthodoxy that is no longer “appropriate for modern devotion” … Too often, this means that such critics simply trade one orthodoxy for another; i.e., they simply embrace the current orthodoxy instead of McConkie’s. In doing so, I believe that they are making the same mistake McConkie made.

    And what was McConkie’s mistake? His mistake was to have presumed that inspiration was the primary basis of the status quo, and to have defended the status quo on that presumption. Without seeming to realize that the church had drifted gradually to it’s McConkie-era orthodoxy due to a legion of environmental influences (both spiritual and temporal), McConkie seemed to have thought that the gradual drift of the church away from status quo was movement away from inspired truth and toward apostasy.

    Indeed, McConkie’s theory of doctrinal development may be fairly (and ironically) characterized as one of “punctuated equilibrium,” wherein doctrine remained static for long stretches until some dramatic revelation or inspired instruction occurred to shake things up.”

  23. Ethan permalink
    June 6, 2010 12:55 am

    Gundek,

    I think we’re on the same page. Certainly blood atonement is not a part of any LDS culture that I know.

    I do think the parallel to the cross may be relevant on some basic level. We are basically dealing with a human being killed for a crime (in this case ours) to satisfy justice. That is by definition proxy capital punishment, isn’t it? We would have perished, Christ stepped in and died for us, etc…

    The other thing that made me curious was how the purpose of civil law differs in a divine theocracy. Seeing how orthodox Jews are very particular about even the most secular processes, they apply a spiritual framework for all of it. Perhaps the lines blur here. Could stoning in this context have a spiritual process, too? The way not being allowed to take more than a prescribed number of steps on the sabbath could? I wouldn’t rule it out, that’s all. That would jive with the repentance view and makes Brigham’s remarks understandable.

    Probably better left for God to sort out.

  24. Kate S permalink
    May 16, 2014 6:49 pm

    Mormons throw Jesus under the bus. They make his sacrifice insufficient. Mormons love the Old Testament and deny the New Testament covenant. It is so “of the flesh” to believe and accept Mormon doctrine because flesh calls to the flesh. The flesh is enmity with God who is Spirit. This is why mormons are repelled by the Word of God.

  25. Seth R. permalink
    May 16, 2014 8:56 pm

    I find dipping your Bible in Coca Cola and garlic sauce to be the best way to ward off Mormons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: