Observations on Comments on the Mormons

[_Some Schmo]

no, the ultimate factor controlling people to be suicide bombers is hatred of others and RELIGION

Suicide bombing as we know it was pioneered by and at least until very recently most often commited for secular reasons.

Mormon polygamy as we know it was pioneered by Mormon pioneers and at least until very recently most often committed for sexual reasons.

What relevance does that have on today's Mormon?

Someone: People suicide bomb because of religion.

Me: Not really. Religion is but one factor, and often not the most significant. For instance, look at history.

You: Blargh!

I always find it fascinating how people will tend to accuse others of the things in which they are most guilty. In this case, we're talking poor reading comprehension.

Pretty entertaining though... I'll give you that.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There is nothing in said oath that implies anything like commiting an act of terrosim. I can tell you for certain there is/was never a time in my life where I would follow such a command. If it came I would be certian that the one who gave it was not of God.

The loyalty oath is so all-encompassing, including the giving of one's life, that commiting a 'terrorist act' (if ordered by one considered a prophet of God) would fall within its parameters. by the way, I wouldn't do it if ordered, either.

[_Mercury]

no, the ultimate factor controlling people to be suicide bombers is hatred of others and RELIGION

Suicide bombing as we know it was pioneered by and at least until very recently most often commited for secular reasons.

Mormon polygamy as we know it was pioneered by Mormon pioneers and at least until very recently most often committed for sexual reasons.

What relevance does that have on today's Mormon?

Someone: People suicide bomb because of religion.

Me: Not really. Religion is but one factor, and often not the most significant. For instance, look at history.

You: Blargh!

Your an idiot. Your forming your outward opinion of suicide bombers just so you and your religion do not appear to be douchebags, which you are.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Jason,



Are you saying you would disobey the prophet of the Lord if he said he received a revelation directly from God to kill an evil person?

Of course I would disobey the prophet if he commanded me to kill anyone. I think most church members would as well.

Personally, I would take being a suicide bomber over killing my own child...(think Abraham), but then again there is Moses (along with lots of men) who slaughtered children and elderly and mothers and fathers...raped the young unmarried girls.

I am not and Old Testament type of fellow.

I'm guessing you are aware that there are many members who would willingly do whatever asked by the Lord.... give everything to the church, even their very lives if necessary!

I am sure there are some that might blindly obey without thinking it through but I think they are limited. But the point is moot really because I highly doubt any such requests would ever be made.

My guess.... there were plenty of LDS men who never thought they would be required/commanded to break the hearts of their wives, by sleeping with young girls and women.

Polygamy is an issue and yes even BY said he desired the grave over taking another wife, but he obeyed. He is the hero. William Law, William Marks and Sidney Rigdon on the other hand are portrayed as the failures and not passing the test. But when it comes to Nancy Rigdon I think Sidney was the hero.

Just saying, the whole obedience thing is pretty strong in the LDS church.

Well the polygamy example is pretty compelling. I like to think we have some a long way since then.

[_Jason Bourne]

There is nothing in said oath that implies anything like commiting an act of terrosim. I can tell you for certain there is/was never a time in my life where I would follow such a command. If it came I would be certian that the one who gave it was not of God.

The loyalty oath is so all-encompassing, including the giving of one's life, that commiting a 'terrorist act' (if ordered by one considered a prophet of God) would fall within its parameters. by the way, I wouldn't do it if ordered, either.

Where in the oath does it call for us to commit terror or murder? Till you can demonstrate that I will have to disagree. The giving of one's life is really in the context of standing up for what one believes even if one's life is threatened. At least that is how I rationally have understood it.

[_Yong Xi]

There is no command from the current-at-that-time prophet to kill this man. This example does not fit the criteria for this discussion of obedience. Joseph F would not have been being obedient to the call from the prophet at the time to kill this man, because there was no call from the prophet to kill people who spoke favorably of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the Smiths. Joseph F would have been acting on his own. The prophet cannot be faulted for the impulses of members acting on their own (which I think is why the MMM is so clouded... was John D acting on his own or at the behest of his prophet?)

I may be mistaken, but if I recall correctly, avenging the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum were in fact part of the temple ceremony at one time. If this was the case, loyalty to that oath may have been the rationale for Joseph F. Smith rather than a direct command from the prophet.

As mentioned, I may be mistaken in this. Perhaps someone can clarify.

[_Blixa]

Yong Xi is correct about the earlier temple oaths (which is one reason I don't find the MMM as cloudy as harmony does maybe).

While its hard to believe "the order" would ever go out now, I have to say the Dallin Oaks soundbyte about never criticizing even if the criticism is true speaks to a culture of authoritarian obedience that certainly makes "holy murder" abstractly possible if not plausible.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Someone: People suicide bomb because of religion.

Me: Not really. Religion is but one factor, and often not the most significant. For instance, look at history.

You: Blargh!

This was to dumb for me to not comment...

Let's do as ALitD suggests and look at history, shall we?

Suicide attacks have been around basically since the dawn of warfare. One of the more noted cases of suicide attacks was the human wave tactics of the Imperial Japanese Army and the infamous Kamakazi flights (The Luftwaffe did the same thing basically during the tail end of WWII, but they concentrated on destroying bridgeheads to slow the Soviet advance). There's even an account of a suicide attack in the Bible (Samson destroying the Philistine Temple).

But the modern term "suicide bombing" is an entirely different animal though...

The first modern suicide bombing happened in 1981 at the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. It was carried out by the Islamic Dawa Party using a car filled with explosives. Since then Islamist militant/terrorist groups have carried out over three thousand suicide bombings through out the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa, and reciently the United States.

The Tamil Tigers didn't get in on the act until 1987, and have carried out an estimated 60-150 (Depends on who you ask, best source I know placed it in the high 90s), such attacks up to present. The Tiger's actions have also been limited pretty much to a single country with a couple sporadic bombings in a tightly confined region of Southeast Asia.

So tell me, Champ, which number is bigger? 3000+ or 100 +/- 40 or so?

You were saying something about religion not being a signifigant factor?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I may be mistaken, but if I recall correctly, avenging the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum were in fact part of the temple ceremony at one time. If this was the case, loyalty to that oath may have been the rationale for Joseph F. Smith rather than a direct command from the prophet.

I believe you are referring to what was called the Oath of Vengeance, which was part of the endowment ceremony until 1927.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Where in the oath does it call for us to commit terror or murder? Till you can demonstrate that I will have to disagree. The giving of one's life is really in the context of standing up for what one believes even if one's life is threatened. At least that is how I rationally have understood it.

It doesn't say "murder" or any other action explicitly -- ergo, my point that the oath is so broad it could be construed to mean anything demanded by a prophet.