DCP: "I hate all non-Mormons"

[_Mister Scratch]

On an MMM thread over on the fittingly named MADboard, a poster has asked the provocative question, "Would You Have Participated in the Killing?" The discussion has actually been quite compelling. I, for one, would expect TBMs to step right in and pooh-pooh away the question completely, but to my astonishment, folks have been answering the OP in all earnestness.

Now, I normally sort of like and feel affection for Prof. Peterson's self-deprecating sense of humor, but his post here has me scratching my head (yes, pun intended):

As to the question of whether I would have joined in: If I can believe much of what is written about me on the web, I would not only have joined in with great gusto, but would have been one of the ringleaders. Particularly if I had been offered money for it or if participation seemed to promise advancement in Church office. I have no conscience, and I hate all non-Mormons.

(emphasis added)

Yeeouch! Why is it that TBMs have such a difficult time taking MMM seriously? Why is it always something to be swept aside, and joked about, as if it is no big deal? Check out Pahoran's response:

Like every other Latter-day Saint now living, I regard the MMM with repugnance, and I would like to believe that I would not have participated. I would like to believe that I would have been with Laban Morrill in opposing the attack at least until instructions came from President Young; knowing, as I do, what those instructions would have entailed.

But I'm not them. I am not in their shoes. I have my own trials, and my own opportunities to blow it spectacularly.

Frankly, I find this both amazing and appalling. He's actually considering that he might have participated?!?. in my opinion, this is quite sickening, and only serves to confirm my suspicion that at least some TBMs feel that the slaughter of the Fancher Party was justified, or that the killers are worth empathizing with, apparently for no other reason than the killers were LDS and the Fanchers were not. Also, what do others make of this last sentence of his? Is this a veiled threat of some kind, or an intimation of some violent act that Pah plans to perform? We know how personally vicious he can be. This comment from him makes me think that he may very well be physically vicious as well.

Finally, as a kind of afterthought, we learn how DCP feels about the acronym "TBM," which, along with donuts, ranks at the top of his "What I Hate" list:

Sidebar observation: I hate the term TBM. It strikes me as dismissive and condescending.

Why, dear Professor, why? How---by any measure---is it "dismissive" and "condescending" to call a spade a spade? Is he not a "true believing Mormon" himself? How curious indeed!

[_harmony]

On an MMM thread over on the fittingly named MADboard, a poster has asked the provocative question, "Would You Have Participated in the Killing?" The discussion has actually been quite compelling. I, for one, would expect TBMs to step right in and pooh-pooh away the question completely, but to my astonishment, folks have been answering the OP in all earnestness.

Now, I normally sort of like and feel affection for Prof. Peterson's self-deprecating sense of humor, but his post here has me scratching my head (yes, pun intended):

As to the question of whether I would have joined in: If I can believe much of what is written about me on the web, I would not only have joined in with great gusto, but would have been one of the ringleaders. Particularly if I had been offered money for it or if participation seemed to promise advancement in Church office. I have no conscience, and I hate all non-Mormons.

(emphasis added)

Yeeouch! Why is it that TBMs have such a difficult time taking MMM seriously? Why is it always something to be swept aside, and joked about, as if it is no big deal?

Because it really is too horrible. We've never, as a people, been allowed to come to terms with our past, to realize that our ancestors weren't always the persecuted ones, but occasionally did some really rehensible things to others who were wholly innocent. This inability on the part of our leaders to acknowledge and apologize (repent, if you will) results in some pretty heavyduty uneasiness. We almost worship our pioneer ancestors (the closer to July we get every year, the stronger this phenomena is), yet some of them did this really bad thing. How to handle that? Obviously Dan handles that by making jokes.

Check out Pahoran's response:

Like every other Latter-day Saint now living, I regard the MMM with repugnance, and I would like to believe that I would not have participated. I would like to believe that I would have been with Laban Morrill in opposing the attack at least until instructions came from President Young; knowing, as I do, what those instructions would have entailed.

But I'm not them. I am not in their shoes. I have my own trials, and my own opportunities to blow it spectacularly.

Frankly, I find this both amazing and appalling. He's actually considering that he might have participated?!?.

I didn't get that from his response at all, MS. I think he's bending over backwards to not condemn them, but he's not condoning what they did either.

I, on the other hand, am trying to come to grips with the idea that one of my ancestors was in the wagon train.

in my opinion, this is quite sickening, and only serves to confirm my suspicion that at least some TBMs feel that the slaughter of the Fancher Party was justified, or that the killers are worth empathizing with, apparently for no other reason than the killers were LDS and the Fanchers were not.

I'm sure there are members on both sides of the question. No doubt there are many who've swallowed the justification without ever checking to veracity of the claims.

Also, what do others make of this last sentence of his? Is this a veiled threat of some kind, or an intimation of some violent act that Pah plans to perform? We know how personally vicious he can be. This comment from him makes me think that he may very well be physically vicious as well.

I didn't take it that way. I thought he was referring to his own opportunities to blow his salvation all to hell, not necessarily in the same manner as the Mormons did in the MMM.

Finally, as a kind of afterthought, we learn how DCP feels about the acronym "TBM," which, along with donuts, ranks at the top of his "What I Hate" list:

Sidebar observation: I hate the term TBM. It strikes me as dismissive and condescending.

Why, dear Professor, why? How---by any measure---is it "dismissive" and "condescending" to call a spade a spade? Is he not a "true believing Mormon" himself? How curious indeed!

Dear Daniel hates anything clever that refers to him that he didn't coin.

[_guy sajer]

I do not know why true believers would find this question distasteful or inappropriate. There is plenty of precedent in Mormon scriptures for killing non-believers or others who otherwise wronged God or his chosen.

God killed millions in a pique with a global flood, sparing only Noah and his family.
Jesus killed tens of thousands with earthquakes, fire, drowing prior to his visit to the Americas (he takes explicit credit for the murder and mayhem).
Elisha calls out a bear to kill children who made fun of him.
God commanded Saul to kill every man, woman, child, and beast of a rival city, and got PO'd when Saul saved a few animals to give sacrifice.
Elijah killed rival priests.
Captain Moroni executed political dissenters.

So, please tell me why it is infeasible that God should kill again, or ask his followers to kill again for him?

As an aside, the glee with which the non-believers suffer all sorts of death, pain, suffering in the "Left Behind" series leads me to believe that there are a non-trivial number of Evangelicals out there who would gladly act as God's willing executioners should the need arise.

I think Mormons are, on balance, more reasonable the Evangelicals, but whether they would kill . . . I think some of them would do it, if they truly believed it was God's will, although I do not think it would be generalized to a great extent. And I think we would be suprised in some cases as to who takes up the sword.

[_harmony]

I do not know why true believers would find this question distasteful or inappropriate. There is plenty of precedent in Mormon scriptures for killing non-believers or others who otherwise wronged God or his chosen.

God killed millions in a pique with a global flood, sparing only Noah and his family.
Jesus killed tens of thousands with earthquakes, fire, drowing prior to his visit to the Americas (he takes explicit credit for the murder and mayhem).
Elisha calls out a bear to kill children who made fun of him.
God commanded Saul to kill every man, woman, child, and beast of a rival city, and got PO'd when Saul saved a few animals to give sacrifice.
Elijah killed rival priests.
Captain Moroni executed political dissenters.

So, please tell me why it is infeasible that God should kill again, or ask his followers to kill again for him?

As an aside, the glee with which the non-believers suffer all sorts of death, pain, suffering in the "Left Behind" series leads me to believe that there are a non-trivial number of Evangelicals out there who would gladly act as God's willing executioners should the need arise.

I think Mormons are, on balance, more reasonable the Evangelicals, but whether they would kill . . . I think some of them would do it, if they truly believed it was God's will, although I do not think it would be generalized to a great extent. And I think we would be suprised in some cases as to who takes up the sword.

I think it's easier to take up the sword if the perceived evil is very different from one's own tribe. A different color, a different culture, a different worldview. I think it would be easier for Mormons to kill Muslims, if they the prophet said God ordered them to do so. I think it would be hard for Mormons to kill other Christians, even if the prophet told them to.

[_dartagnan]

To be honest I found that discussion quite disheartening, as a Latter-day Saint.

If you recall, a couple of months ago there was a similar discussion whereby several LDS participants defended the actions of the murderers. Diggerdan went so far as to say that murder of the women and children was the best thing for them (yes, he really did say that!). Another poster who is currently serving his mission, said we cannot judge the murderers because we might have done the exact same thing. What the hell kind of statement is that? He then went on to argue that people given the same circumstances would probably do the same things, so we cannot judge murderers. This flies in the face of not only the gospel which actually does judge murderers, but also the concept of spiritual individuality that exists outside our natural environment. By his logic nobody should go to hell since it was just a case of dumb luck that people are born in environments more condusive to proper upbringing, and therefore those who aren't, cannot be held accountable.

It amazes me how LDS try to distance themselves from the MMM while at the same time try to defend the actions of the participants; as if they feel some strange need to rush to the defense of fellow LDS, no matter how heinous their crimes.

Of course a moderator and Pahoran tried to offer some damage control after these guys made complete asses of themselves, suggesting they were misunderstood or what not.

[_dartagnan]

For those interested, I chronicled the details of a similar discussion here:

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13

Some of these responses will blow you away.

What is the hang-up with killing women and children in this instance? I personally think if once all the men were dead killing the rest was the most humane thing to do. – Diggerdan Sep 5 2006, 07:10 AM

What are we to make of the fact that prominent LDS apologists admit that given the same circumstances, they may have killed women and children? Remember the MMM circumstances. Their families were not in any direct danger. It was just fear and paranoia that justified their actions. And modern LDS are saying they might have joined in? How is this not like Muslims today justifying terrorism while pretending to be moderate?

If DCP cannot state unquivocally that he would not have murdered women and children in this instance - which were actions based on fear and paranoia - then he is hypocritical for criticizing those who rightfully fear and are concerned about troubling militant aspects of Islam. He and his cohorts like Hauglid seem to imply that the greater danger to civilization are those who would act out in fear and paranoia based on a lack of information.

[_guy sajer]

To be honest I found that discussion quite disheartening, as a Latter-day Saint.

If you recall, a couple of months ago there was a similar discussion whereby several LDS participants defended the actions of the murderers. Diggerdan went so far as to say that murder of the women and children was the best thing for them (yes, he really did say that!). Another poster who is currently serving his mission, said we cannot judge the murderers because we might have done the exact same thing. What the hell kind of statement is that? He then went on to argue that people given the same circumstances would probably do the same things, so we cannot judge murderers. This flies in the face of not only the gospel which actually does judge murderers, but also the concept of spiritual individuality that exists outside our natural environment. By his logic nobody should go to hell since it was just a case of dumb luck that people are born in environments more condusive to proper upbringing, and therefore those who aren't, cannot be held accountable.

It amazes me how LDS try to distance themselves from the MMM while at the same time try to defend the actions of the participants; as if they feel some strange need to rush to the defense of fellow LDS, no matter how heinous their crimes.

Of course a moderator and Pahoran tried to offer some damage control after these guys made complete asses of themselves, suggesting they were misunderstood or what not.

Like all true believers, TBMs tend to argue on the basis of convenience as opposed to principle. That is, they assert moral or other principles to which they hold other people but from which they exempt themselves or from which they exempt their religious icons. They argue not so much to assert moral principles, but to assert why common moral principles to not apply to them. In doing so, they eschew generalizeable moral principles in favor of ad hoc arguments of convenience that permit them to exempt themselves or their religious icons from moral principles they would otherwise apply to everyone else.

A recent example was our discussion on the lack of financial transparency by TSCC. In just about any other contexts, the true believer would decry the lack of financial transparency, but when it is their beloved church that is guilty of it, suddenly the principle no longer applies. They would not be willing to generalize the principle of non-disclosure to everyone, realizing that it is a flawed principle, but they assert, either explicitly or implicitly, that the Mormon Church and its leaders merit exceptions, always, of course, justifying this conclusion absent any kind appeal to moral principle.

In like manner, true believers exempt God, his spokesmen, and his followers, from the generalizeable principle of “thou shalt not kill” when convenient to maintain their religious belief and respect for their religious icons. They invoke ad hoc arguments of convenience to justify wanton acts of murder in the Bible and Book of Mormon and, in the case of the MMM, the murder of innocent men, women, and children in more contemporary times. (Though to be fair, I think that many fair minded member of TSCC today would not attempt to justify the MMM, although they will do whatever it takes to absolve BY of any responsibility.) Meanwhile, they condemn all other acts of religiously inspired murder, whether contemporary or in the ancient books of competing religions.

Moral consistency and critical self-reflection are not the hallmarks of the true believer.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Like every other Latter-day Saint now living, I regard the MMM with repugnance, and I would like to believe that I would not have participated. I would like to believe that I would have been with Laban Morrill in opposing the attack at least until instructions came from President Young; knowing, as I do, what those instructions would have entailed.

But I'm not them. I am not in their shoes. I have my own trials, and my own opportunities to blow it spectacularly.

Frankly, I find this both amazing and appalling. He's actually considering that he might have participated?!?.

I remember once making the comment in a Sunday School class that, unlike Abraham, I could never consider (let alone do) hurting my child, even if God commanded it, but that I would rather be damned for eternity. Needless to say, many were appalled that I would speak such blasphemy (but others told me they would do the same thing).

[_JAK]

I think it's easier to take up the sword if the perceived evil is very different from one's own tribe. A different color, a different culture, a different worldview. I think it would be easier for Mormons to kill Muslims, if they the prophet said God ordered them to do so. I think it would be hard for Mormons to kill other Christians, even if the prophet told them to.

I agree with your rejoinder, harmony. When we train people to kill, we must override any natural inclination to regard those to be killed as humans like ourselves. The degree to which we can or do regard people as confronting human predicaments as we ourselves regard human predicaments tends to preclude the willingness to kill them. So the enemy must be perceived as evil even if a helpless woman, child or old man without defense. If the order is to kill, the killer must believe a narrow propaganda.

JAK

[_Dr. Shades]

This thread reminds me of a downright devilishly delicious post that Tal Bachman made within a similar MMM thread over on the old FAIR boards.

The TBMs were scrambling to absolve Brigham Young of all connection to the massacre, but then Tal jumped in and reminded everyone that throughout the Old Testament, prophets frequently commanded Israel to destroy and slaughter neighboring cities and peoples. He concluded by saying that Brigham was merely following God's prophetic pattern, and we would have grave doubts about his prophethood if he DIDN'T order the massacre.

LOL!