What do you think about WoW?

[StallionMcBeastly]

Ah...the, "You're offensive so I win the argument," tactic. A classic. Kind of the go-to for the liberal crowd though. So no originality points.

Lol I wasn't claiming I win, just that we can disagree respectfully. I respect your opinion even though it's different than mine. I don't understand why you're still being condescending.

[StallionMcBeastly]

He said our leaders are guilty of murder..... It a big claim that he totally failed to support with anything more then that it was his opinion and the opinion of a few other people with clear issues with the church. Don't you think the accusation of murder is quite inflammatory? Would you not feel offended if someone accused you (or your friends or your family) of murder? (Or wife beatings?) Would you consider such statements to be polite?

He didn't say just "oh there is some questionable stuff in the JoD " (No one here would have had a problem with that statement) He used the stuff in the JoD to try to support his claim of Church sponsored murder.

Brigham Young taught that some people could not attain salvation without spilling their own blood. That is not troubling to you?

[Guest]

Typical lines from "how to argue with a Mormon" guidebooks:

 

"Isn't that shocking?"
"Doesn't that trouble you?"

"Don't you find that awful?"

[StallionMcBeastly]

Typical lines from "how to argue with a Mormon" guidebooks:

"Isn't that shocking?"

"Doesn't that trouble you?"

"Don't you find that awful?"

It is an honest question.

[duffman180]

Brigham Young taught that some people could not attain salvation without spilling their own blood. That is not troubling to you?

 

Thanks Stallion.  It's nice to see someone can sympathize with my point of view.  I never said Brigham Young killed anyone, there is zero evidence for that.  I'm saying he advocated and taught a doctrine that encouraged the murder of people who commit various sins, and as a result (no surprise) people were killed.

[Guest]

I didn't call anyone names. I was just pointing out that they were familiar arguments from others who wanted me to see things about my beliefs in a certain way. Like, in real life conversations, almost verbatim. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Lol I wasn't claiming I win, just that we can disagree respectfully. I respect your opinion even though it's different than mine. I don't understand why you're still being condescending.

 

I am not. You're saying that I am is condescending though.

[NeuroTypical]

Here's one account of a man being killed:

[...]

( Confessions of John D. Lee, Photo-reprint of 1877 edition, pages 282-283

 

 

Did you just quote this book as a source?

 

If you can't see the image, the full title of the book is:

MORMONISM UNVEILED

or

THE LIFE AND CONFESSIONS

of the late Mormon Bishop

JOHN D. LEE

(Written by Himself)

Embracing a history of Mormonism from its inception

down to the present time, with an exposition

of the secret history, signs,

symbols and crimes of the

Mormon church.

 

Also the true history of the horrible debauchery known as 

THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE

 

Page two is a hoot: "The Mormon Leaders were so greatly alarmed at the prospect of the publication of Lee's writings ... that they sent their "Blood Atoners" to threaten the life of Mr. Bishop..."

 

These kinds of books were all the rage back in the day.  I own a similar book, similarly named and themed, handed down by my father.  It chronicles the life and times of a guy who got suckered into polygamy, and then escaped Utah.  In the book, Brigham Young sends Porter Rockwell to kill the guy, but our hero buys his way past Porter with some good quality alcohol.

 

My point, of course, is that the period's "true story written by the person who saw the whole thing" books, aren't true and weren't written by the person.  They were that era's version of today's 'Marry a Millionaire'-type shows.  They are works of sensational fiction.

 

Duffman, if you believe such stuff is reliable as a source, it speaks volumes about the trustworthiness or soundness of your opinions.  I hope I'm not speaking too condescendingly or harshly.

Edited March 10, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

I am not. You're saying that I am is condescending though.

No no no no no. Calling people intolerant is not intolerant. Unless it's the wrong people calling people intolerant, which is of course one of the signs of their intolerance. Similarly, calling people names for name-calling doesn't count as calling names, unless it's the wrong people calling names, in which case it is.

 

You really need to learn the rules, TFP.

[estradling75]

Brigham Young taught that some people could not attain salvation without spilling their own blood. That is not troubling to you?

 

 

Nice dodge of the questions Stallion...  You demand other to answer your questions but you ignore the ones asked of you.  Do you consider it polite to accuse people of murder or not?  

 

As for your questions alot about that time frame "troubles" me...  but I am not going around accusing people of murder, racism, and sex sins because I am "troubled" about it.

[omegaseamaster75]

I haven't said anything untrue.  BY did teach the blood atonement, people were killed (though not by BY), but the doctrine itself is horrid enough.  The Adam/God doctrine was taught, and incorporated into the endowment ceremony. We no removed it, because it's false doctrine even though taught by prophets.

 

In my opinion, the church certainly was racist and prophets,seers and revelators taught awful things about Africans.

 

In my opinion, polygamy was abused and there was sexual misconduct by Joseph Smith and other subsequent Prophets and apostles.  You can interpret it how you will, and I interpret it how I choose.

 

Even with these facts as unsavory as they are, I still remain a believer.  I have a more nuanced view of the messiness of the restoration, but nevertheless I believe it.  I take the Givens approach.  I feel truth when I read the book of mormon.  I feel inspired by the words of Joseph Smith.  I love Christ and strive to follow Him.  I am sorry that I have offended people, but it wasn't my intent.  Perhaps I shouldn't have brought up the messy parts of our past, but I was doing so to try and defend my view point, not to incite hostility.

I am actually OK with most of this, and I to am still a believer. 

 

sorry guys some of the history of the church is "shocking" This does not make the church untrue.

 

Why is it that if we do anything other than paint our past leaders with a broad brush of sainthood are we are called apostates? 

 

None of us were there, even authorized church history has a slant on it a positive one...I stated this earlier in another thread to the victor go the spoils. The church has the big stick to write its history how it wants and say everything else is hearsay or false because they won, the church survived its infancy and has grown into the church that we now know and love.

Edited March 10, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[The Folk Prophet]

I am actually OK with most of this, and I to am still a believer. 

 

sorry guys some of the history of the church is "shocking" This does not make the church untrue.

 

Why is it that if we do anything other than paint our past leaders with a broad brush of sainthood are we are called apostates? 

 

None of us were there, even authorized church history has a slant on it a positive one...I stated this earlier in another thread to the victor go the spoils. The church has the big stick to write its history how it wants and say everything else is hearsay or false because they won, the church survived its infancy and has grown into the church that we now know and love.

 

I feel positive we've been over this before -- but there is a HUGE difference between accepting that Joseph wasn't a saint (something I feel confident we all accept (depending, of course, on the interpretation of the word -- as from a certain very literal (LDS) usage of the word, he was a saint...but I digress...)) and claiming that he was guilty of sexual misconduct. The first requires no defense. It is truth as supported by Joseph himself, and scriptural revelation. The second is unfounded libel, plain and simple. And that we will defend against.

Edited March 10, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

Brigham Young taught that some people could not attain salvation without spilling their own blood. That is not troubling to you?

Young, and every other prophet, also taught that no people could attain salvation without an innocent third party spilling His blood.

 

That doesn't trouble you?

 

A gifted rhetoritician can make pretty much anything sound shockingly horrible; especially when they have a gold-mine of terms like "blood atonement" to deal with.  I reserve judgment on that aspect of Young's teachings; and I don't fault him for the activities of Lee & Co. at Mountain Meadows or any other fringe Mormon moonbat of the 19th century any more than I fault John the Revelator and the prophet Daniel for authoring the books that gave David Koresh his apocalyptic ideas.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

I am actually OK with most of this, and I to am still a believer. 

 

sorry guys some of the history of the church is "shocking" This does not make the church untrue.

 

Why is it that if we do anything other than paint our past leaders with a broad brush of sainthood are we are called apostates? 

 

None of us were there, even authorized church history has a slant on it a positive one...I stated this earlier in another thread to the victor go the spoils. The church has the big stick to write its history how it wants and say everything else is hearsay or false because they won, the church survived its infancy and has grown into the church that we now know and love.

 

 

As TFP says for Joseph Smith the same goes to Brigham Young or other church leader...  Its one thing to say he was a flawed man...  Its quite another to accuse him of gross sins.

[omegaseamaster75]

I feel positive we've been over this before -- but there is a HUGE difference between accepting that Joseph wasn't a saint (something I feel confident we all accept (depending, of course, on the interpretation of the word -- as from a certain very literal (LDS) usage of the word, he was a saint...but I digress...)) and claiming that he was guilty of sexual misconduct. The first requires no defense. It is truth as supported by Joseph himself, and scriptural revelation. The second is unfounded libel, plain and simple. And that we will defend against.

Fundamentally i agree, accusations of sexual misconduct, blood atonement, so on and so forth cannot be substantiated to the point of empirical fact. Fact of the matter is though that you cannot prove that they didn't happen either. Why because they are all dead.

 

One however can look at patterns of behavior and draw conclusions. I might suggest that accusations be held at bay, because of the lack of definitive proof. 

 

Clearly this is not the forum that wants to entertain such ideas at any rate.

[The Folk Prophet]

Fact of the matter is though that you cannot prove that they didn't happen either. Why because they are all dead.

 

It's true. There are a lot of things that I cannot prove didn't happen. And we all know that is the key to a good scholarly understanding of history.

 

One however can look at patterns of behavior and draw conclusions. I might suggest that accusations be held at bay, because of the lack of definitive proof. 

 

If this were what was happening then there might be a leg to stand on. These conclusions are being, and have consistently been, drawn not from patterns of behavior, but rather from tertiary source hearsay (at best) mostly by haters of the church, the disenfranchised, and your basic -- dare I accuse them of it? -- it might be condescending -- anti-Mormons.

[estradling75]

Fundamentally i agree, accusations of sexual misconduct, blood atonement, so on and so forth cannot be substantiated to the point of empirical fact. Fact of the matter is though that you cannot prove that they didn't happen either. Why because they are all dead.

 

One however can look at patterns of behavior and draw conclusions. I might suggest that accusations be held at bay, because of the lack of definitive proof. 

 

Clearly this is not the forum that wants to entertain such ideas at any rate.

 

In addition to what TFP said..

 

We have always been a missionary focused website (although not exclusively so) so we are not going to let rampant attacks against the church or it leaders (We even have rules to that effect) where opinions are trying to masquerade as facts 

[omegaseamaster75]

It's true. There are a lot of things that I cannot prove didn't happen. And we all know that is the key to a good scholarly understanding of history.

 

 

If this were what was happening then there might be a leg to stand on. These conclusions are being, and have consistently been, drawn not from patterns of behavior, but rather from tertiary source hearsay (at best) mostly by haters of the church, the disenfranchised, and your basic -- dare I accuse them of it? -- it might be condescending -- anti-Mormons.

I don't think Duff is anti Mormon, and neither am I. All history is hearsay to one degree or another.

[Vort]

Fact of the matter is though that you cannot prove that they didn't happen either.

No. You didn't really just write that "you can't prove a negative so therefore it might have been that way". My eyes must be deceiving me.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think Duff is anti Mormon, and neither am I. All history is hearsay to one degree or another.

 

Well, yeah; and your earlier comment to the effect that history is written by the victors was also apropos.  But it begs the question:  To what point and purpose is history written and used?

 

How did "history" even become an issue in this thread?  Quite simply:  To justify disobeying a Church-imposed standard of obedience that carries the endorsement of every. single. one. of the Church's current leadership corps.

[duffman180]

Did you just quote this book as a source?

 

If you can't see the image, the full title of the book is:

 

Page two is a hoot: "The Mormon Leaders were so greatly alarmed at the prospect of the publication of Lee's writings ... that they sent their "Blood Atoners" to threaten the life of Mr. Bishop..."

 

These kinds of books were all the rage back in the day.  I own a similar book, similarly named and themed, handed down by my father.  It chronicles the life and times of a guy who got suckered into polygamy, and then escaped Utah.  In the book, Brigham Young sends Porter Rockwell to kill the guy, but our hero buys his way past Porter with some good quality alcohol.

 

My point, of course, is that the period's "true story written by the person who saw the whole thing" books, aren't true and weren't written by the person.  They were that era's version of today's 'Marry a Millionaire'-type shows.  They are works of sensational fiction.

 

Duffman, if you believe such stuff is reliable as a source, it speaks volumes about the trustworthiness or soundness of your opinions.  I hope I'm not speaking too condescendingly or harshly.

I'm aware that there's crappy anti-Mormon literature out there, but even FARMs acknowledges that there were people killed through justification of the blood atonement. It's no secret, idk why you refuse to acknowledge it. Again, no evidence that BY killed anyone, but he did teach that doctrine. That's all I'm saying.

[pam]

I will agree that name calling needs to stop.

[duffman180]

I am actually OK with most of this, and I to am still a believer. 

 

sorry guys some of the history of the church is "shocking" This does not make the church untrue.

 

Why is it that if we do anything other than paint our past leaders with a broad brush of sainthood are we are called apostates? 

 

None of us were there, even authorized church history has a slant on it a positive one...I stated this earlier in another thread to the victor go the spoils. The church has the big stick to write its history how it wants and say everything else is hearsay or false because they won, the church survived its infancy and has grown into the church that we now know and love.

Thank you, I clearly feel the same way. I'm no heretic or apostate for having nuanced views of past prophets. It's impossible for me to morally justify some of the things they did if I have to believe it all came from God. I don't believe God inspired these troubling things. It's okay if others don't see it like me, but that's my take.

[estradling75]

I'm aware that there's crappy anti-Mormon literature out there, but even FARMs acknowledges that there were people killed through justification of the blood atonement. It's no secret, idk why you refuse to acknowledge it. Again, no evidence that BY killed anyone, but he did teach that doctrine. That's all I'm saying.

 

 

You do realize work you are calling crappy anti-Mormon literature... is the very source you claim for an example the Blood Atonement written by Lee???

 

And you still seem to have problem with providing proof of your claims of murder.  This one is easy if FARMs acknowledge Blood Atonement Murders by church leaders it should be really, really easy for you to cite them.  If you have such a source you really should have started with them rather then what you acknowledge as crappy anti Mormon literature.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm aware that there's crappy anti-Mormon literature out there, but even FARMs acknowledges that there were people killed through justification of the blood atonement. It's no secret, idk why you refuse to acknowledge it. Again, no evidence that BY killed anyone, but he did teach that doctrine. That's all I'm saying.

 

And there are people who have been killed through justification of the writings of John the Revelator, Daniel, and pretty much any other prophet you can think of.

 

As for Lee--As long as we're attacking people based on uncorroborated statements: do you know what John D. Lee allegedly did to teenaged sisters Ruth and Rachel Dunlap at Mountain Meadows, right before he shot them?

 

It's interesting to me that you are so deferential to Lee, but so skeptical towards Heber Grant or the other modern LDS General Authorities who--for all their shortcomings--never killed anyone, and were never accused of double-rape.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Just_A_Guy