He is such a contented soul he needed bath in suds
Posted on 11/25/2007 6:19:11 AM PST by fallingwater
MANY books (considered by many to be on par with those books now in the New Testament) were labeled as heresy and burned...as were many of those who protested the exclusion of those books.
..and the person who called that Council was Constantine I ...who was NOT Baptized a Christian until just before he died.
While the MAIN purpose of that Council was NOT to decide which Books were to be considered Holy...that WAS one of the outcomes.
...and just what do the LDS say the Book of Mormon is??? They claim it's another witness to the Divinity of Christ. Nothing more.
Seems to me the only person with their head in a moist wet place is you.
redrock
"..and the person who called that Council was Constantine I ...who was NOT Baptized a Christian until just before he died." Um, when did Constantine get born again?... That's right, you nor I can say! Don't strain too hard their, young one.
"While the MAIN purpose of that Council was NOT to decide which Books were to be considered Holy...that WAS one of the outcomes." Try reading from sources not fed to you by LDS dogma.
"...and just what do the LDS say the Book of Mormon is??? They claim it's another witness to the Divinity of Christ. Nothing more." But the BM is not a 'witness' because it is a total fabrication by a peepstone liar who tried to pass off a rewrite of the King James Bible in order to add prophecy of himself! He proved himself a false prophet when he fabricated the book of abraham by a pretend 'translation' of an Egyptian papri for the dead.
"Seems to me the only person with their head in a moist wet place is you." Son, get your childish redundant head out of your ass. Euphemism aren't hiding your ignorance.
“Really? Then why was Johnston’s 1,500 man army marching towards them with no advanced warning or stated purpose? “
Perhaps because Brigham Young was a murderous cutthroat?
“Mormons in Utah were in a state of high tension, expecting one more massacre at the hands of the Americans.”
It wasn’t like they hadn’t brought their own extermination orders with them, starting with Sydney Rigdon’s extermination order, Joseph Smith’s involvement with the Danites, the plunder of Davies county, leading to their near annihilation at Far West. Once Joseph Smith succeeded in having Governor Boggs executed, and Smith destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor Press (because he’d been wife stealing, land speculating and running a tinpot army), the events at Carthage were preordained and only halted by Governor Ford or they’d all have been killed. Brigham Young did his own deeds, inciting Blood Atonement and the Meadows Mountain Massacre.
“The first movements of the Utah War were taking place. Scouts were sent out to empede the advance of the troops.”
Think about that, what other group had been continually waging a militia war AGAINST THE U.S. since 1838??
“Mormons were gathering their grain and supplies together wondering what more they had to endure.”
Nothing is EVER their fault. That’s one explanation. The other is that Smith and Young were tinpot dictators out to fornicate and make themselves rich and were little different than outlaws. No wonder so many MORMONS got sick of them and apostasized left and right, including most of the Witnesses and Apostles! ! ! But it’s always their fault, not bank cheat Smith or murderer Young.
“They were ready to even abandon homes and move on once again, to Mexico if necessary. The Fancher emigrant train moved through Utah angry with the Mormons because they would not sell them grain or supplies.”
I’d say so, because it meant they’d die between there and California, even though the Utah harvest had been plentiful. Nice Brigham, starving out a pioneer wagon train as part of Blood Atonement. And please tell the whole story, Parley Pratt was killed because HE WAS WIFE AND CHILD STEALING and the jilted husband caught up with the bum.
“Tensions grew between the Mormons and the emigrant train. There were threats and counter threats. There were boasts from some of the Fancher party that they had been part of early Mormon persecutions. There were threats that when the Fancher party got to California, they would send back more troops.”
Well, when you run a paranoid anti-American outfit like Young did, there were bound to be conflicts with normal people who still thought law and order existed in U.S. territories.
“When Brigham Young heard of the gathering conflict, he sent a fast rider with word to let the party go unharmed. It was too late. The massacre had already occurred.”
Like anyone except true-believers think Brigham Young, who had dicatorial powers, didn’t himself order the massacre.
“Mormons will always be embarrassed by the event. However, they are also angry when the story is told without the context. You refer to this story as a way Mormons handle dissidents. Actually it is a story of how many Americans handle dissidents. In fact, you can see that same spirit on FR today.”
Butchery of 152 men women and children needs context? Does Haun’s Mill also need context??
Of course, you can see the same atmosphere of Blood Atonement here today. Oh, maybe you aren’t calling for murders, but you certainly have your enforcers out trying to shut up anyone who presents an alternative history (one which I’ve taken pains to find from Mormons as well as Gentiles).
So please, keep your head in the sand and ONLY present the view straight from the mothership. Never read any of the other accounts, that way you’ll never be accused of actually thinking.
“Nothing like a bitter man Coyote to show teeth!”
Yes I am a bitter man, I hate racists, and child molesters, and abortionists, and communists, and open borders apologists and political flip floppers, etc. Of course, I am also jubilant about babies and my family and classic cars and making tons of money and FreeRepublic, among many other things.
So just what would your point be? Or do you have one?
You are a phony!
Have you ever seen such a sad case of self delusion?
It reminds me of concrete, all mixed up and set harder than rock.
this man is all over the years has been all over the place!
If life is so sweet than why murmur!
“You are a phony!”
And you are a phooey!, a Hooey! a Neener Neener! A peep stoner! A clown! A waffle! A potato! A macaroon!
My, engaging in high intellectual debate with you is exhausting!
[WOW! I must say you are an amazing “historian.”
Thanks for making yourself look so unbelievable, no one needs to take you seriously.]
okay smarty, justify Blood Atonement for everyone hear, since you are so righteous about the Mountain Meadows Massacre of young children. Must make you proud justifying the work of baby butchers. That wasn’t the only Gentile or apostate Brigham Young had killed you know.
“Have you ever seen such a sad case of self delusion?
It reminds me of concrete, all mixed up and set harder than rock.”
Actually, I have seen a worse condition among people who believe in peep stones and reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics. But I guess that would be the definition of self-delusion.
You do not appear open to rational discussion, but for others I will mention that “blood atonement” is a rare, rhetorical, speculative term in Mormon literature. It has no basis in Mormon doctrine or Mormon practice.
What it means when it appears in literature is the speculation that some person’s crimes might be so great (such as shedding Innocent blood after receiving the witness of the Spirit) that they put themselves beyond the reach of Christ’s atonement. The speculation is that then they may have to voluntarily relinquish their own life to put themselves back into the reach of Christ’s atonement.
What it means to anti_Mormons, however, is that the Church has had a policy of going around killing people, which is ridiculous.
You can imagine all you want it won’t change your demeanor!
“It won’t change your demeanor!”
what, given up on the name calling already?
[You do not appear open to rational discussion, but for others I will mention that “blood atonement” is a rare, rhetorical, speculative term in Mormon literature. It has no basis in Mormon doctrine or Mormon practice.
What it means when it appears in literature is the speculation that some person’s crimes might be so great (such as shedding Innocent blood after receiving the witness of the Spirit) that they put themselves beyond the reach of Christ’s atonement. The speculation is that then they may have to voluntarily relinquish their own life to put themselves back into the reach of Christ’s atonement.]
Oh come now, that is a flat out lie. What really happened is that Brigham Young was in to killing apostates and Gentiles who opposed him. Usually he did by saying “the Indians killed them”, as he did at the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Brigham had his own hit man, and a guy left over from Joseph Smith - one even testified against him. Blood Atonement carries on in less violent form in the ex-communications of apostates and their shunning.
It really is pretty sad when you can’t own up to the murderous history of the LDS. I guess the Danites were just a cub scout group.
That's ALWAYS how it is; isn't it!
Love or 'hate'; never a middle ground.
"To understand LDS organization members, you have to understand Joseph Smith," Elsie says.
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.