But...hmmm...it seems like you are somehow doing exactly what I talked about.
"Let me ask you this question: Why did the Amish, the Shakers, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, and other non-conventional religion groups have no such difficulties in the same areas? "Are you implying that because they didn't have as great a problem that somehow that justified what happened to the LDS? Because it sure sounds like you're leaning that way, otherwise why frame the question as you did? I mean, if they had such problems when others didn't, then they must have brought it on themselves, right? Those little kids, those women, etc.? That somehow they did something to deserve such treatment?
The deaths, murder, rape, and then driving the rest out in the dead of winter with nothing but the clothes on their backs by the thousands? Sorry none of it was right. And if you are going there with your loaded question...that dog don't hunt.
Apparently you are pretty much proving the very point I made that you described as so poisonous.
Well, I also meant what I said at the start of and the end of the comment namely:
Their deaths do not justify what happened at Mountain Meadows in 1857, but it does provide the background and context.NONE OF IT, neither the MMM was in any way justified or made right, or the killings of the LDS by the mobs in Missouri and Illinois. They were all abohrant.
Fact is, all of it was wrong and bad...killing innocents in such a manner, out of spite, bigotry or revenge is never justified.
That clear enough for you?
You have a great evening.
I congratulate you AGAIN on properly executing a poisoned well. Anyone who responds, by implication in your argument, is proving your point. It is set up so that no one can respond without being discredited. That is why it is a logical fallacy because it doesn't deal with the argument but attacks preemptively any responder.
I mean, if they had such problems when others didn't, then they must have brought it on themselves, right?
Yes, to some degree. Somehow trouble always followed the Mormons from New York to Ohio to Illinois to Missouri. Given that these types of troubles didn't plague the other groups suggests that the claims of persecution without cause are exaggerated. Notice that I didn't say completely unfounded, just overstated. Historical documents, both Mormon and non-Mormon, suggest that there is some blame both ways.
Those little kids, those women, etc.? That somehow they did something to deserve such treatment?
EMPHATICALLY, NO. Even if the claims of those who attacked the Mormons were true, their response was totally inappropriate and they should have been charged with high crimes.
NONE OF IT, neither the MMM was in any way justified or made right, or the killings of the LDS by the mobs in Missouri and Illinois. They were all abohrant.
On that, we can agree. However, let's remember that it was you who opened this can of worms by providing the "context" of Mormon persecution to "explain" the MMM.