Posted on 08/18/2007 11:25:10 AM PDT by tantiboh
An excellent point.
~”...although sometimes quite quirky.”~
Certainly a fair criticism!
Indeed. I'm "quite quirky" about a lot of things.
FMCDH(BITS)
Just stating the obvious.... ;-)
That IS bizarre, given that both are cults and allow multiple wives.
One would think they should be treated the same.
It’s not religion-baiting. Mormonism was the subject of the thread. Why don’t you answer the questions?
You did bring up an interesting point, though. Both Islam and Mormonism rely on the vindictive God of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.
~”Mormonism was the subject of the thread.”~
No, Hollywood bias against Mormonism, as demonstrated in a particular film, was the subject of the thread.
No. First of all, the Crusades were defensive. Secondly, there is nothing in Christian scripture or teaching that justifies aggressive violence.
On the other hand, both Mormonism and Islam are full of calls to violence.
No, it’s not. Proselytizing is the word you are thinking of - granted, Evangelicals do proselytize, but the what I was referring to was the group commonly known as Evangelical Christians, that is, Protestants who are in “non denominational” but fairly conservative churches that were offshoots of some of the bigger mainline groups such as the Baptists.
And even when Evangelicals proselytize, they don’t do it by the sword. Neither does Mormonism, nowadays, and what I meant is that modern Mormonism is adapting itself to the Protestant Evangelical model.
You are mistaken.
It’s a strange story. If there had not been so much resistance to Mormon plans for the US - and if the Mormons had not wanted statehood so much - 19th century US history might have been marked by a violent bloody war against the Mormons.
OK, then that leaves it open as to whether the “bias” has any foundation or not. Personally, I don’t think Hollywood is biased against Mormonism. September Dawn was a very realistic film, and its release has actually been held up several times because Hollywood caved to Mormon pressure.
I'm curious as to the source of this wealth of information you have on Islam and Mormonism. Are you a former member of either? Do you have a degree in religion or something? Have you read the Koran? Have you read the Book of Mormon?
What are these “Mormon plans for the US”? This is the first I’ve heard of this.
I wonder if SEPTEMBER Dawn is the answer to RED Dawn.
Okay, I’ve avoided commenting on the whole Romney-Mormon issue, even where the Mountain Meadows Massacre was brought in. I’m going to post this once, and will make no further comment. I will immediately be accused of (a) hating Mormons; (b) taking things out of context; (c) being ignorant; or any number of other things by people who can’t/won’t take an objective approach to LDS history. None of the accusations will be justified, but they will flow freely from people who upon investigating the church’s claim to authority, immediately cast aside the very means by which God instructed us to test such claims. There is plenty of documentation for what I post here, but if your mind is open enough to truth, you will investigate things for yourself. I have no patience for leading someone by the nose through each and every historical record.
To claim that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was some aberration that Brigham Young knew nothing about or tried to stop is twelve kinds of absurd.
Utah at that time was comparable to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. You didn’t blow your nose without Young’s permission. Troublemakers disappeared, and their possessions were redistributed on the QT.
John D. Lee, eventually made the fall guy and executed for his part in the massacre, was the leader of the Danites, a group which served Brigham Young in much the same way that the SS served Hitler. Further, Lee had been “sealed” to Young in a temple ceremony that, in effect, made him Young’s adopted son. So there is no credible way that the attack did not take place without the express knowledge and approval of Young. One account cites a chief from the Indian tribe involved as stating that he received a message from Young asking for his cooperation.
To this day, the official LDS line is to somewhat excuse the attack as a response to Mormon persecution in Missouri, and the rumor spread at the time the Fancher train was passing through Utah — to the effect that Missouri “wildcatters” were among the group and were purposely insulting Mormons and their leadership — continue to be dragged out without a shred of evidence to back such an absurd premise up. To believe that a train would provoke the very populace on whom they would depend for supplies during their passage strains credibility beyond the breaking point.
However, regardless of any other specifics, or the lack of a “smoking gun,” I return to my first point; that, given Lee’s relationship with Young and his role as leader of the Danites, there is simply zero chance that Young didn’t sign off on the attack.
Care to challenge these assertions? Fine, do your homework. Read the various books that document the times, the people, and the massacre.
Oh, and to those who think that it’s irrelevant to how we should regard the LDS church today; if Brigham Young was part of such a horrible atrocity, it taints his claim to being a man of God just as much if the apostle Peter were accused of same. We are not talking about some rogue church member or official. We are talking about the man who picked up the alleged prophetic mantle from Joseph Smith, the church founder; and who arguably did even more to shape the direction of the church.
I haven't even read past this line, but this is absolutely an outrageous comment. To even compare a God-fearing man like Brigham Young to a murderous tyrant is completely unacceptable, and I ask you to take this back. Brigham Young may have been the governor, but he did not have absolute power and was not a violent dictator. If he was, the US government would not have allowed him to remain as governor.
Now I will go back and read the rest of your post, but I ask you to moderate your statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.