? for Ray A

[_Bond...James Bond]

Ray,

Here's what I don't understand about your reasoning. You insist that the mean things said about specific Mormons and Mormonism in general portend future acts of violence against Mormons. Yet all you do about it is to come to this board and tell us how horrible we are and how we will have blood on our hands one day.

I stated earlier in this thread that if you're really concerned about future acts of violence against Mormons, you should be doing something that could stop it, like contacting the Romney campaign, which has the public platform in the US right now, and try to convince them to address the problem. You acted as if that were a ridiculous suggestion.

I view your approach as evidence as to what you really are trying to do. In other words, action speaks louder than words. You say you're worried about future acts of violence against Mormons, and yet all you do is come here and fuss at us. Ironically, at the same time, you tell us that critical exmormons are the LAST people who will get the church to change. So exactly what results do you expect your criticisms here to have? That's right, you know the answer. Zero. So the reality is that you are engaging in ZERO actions to stop the future wave of violence against Mormons. Isn't that a bit odd, if you really believe what you're saying? Why aren't you trying to save Mormon lives?

I think the answer is obvious. Since you are a decent and moral person, if you really believed Mormons were at serious risk of violence, you would do what you could to stop it. So I don't believe you really believe it. I think you are simply creating an issue through which to "get back" at exmormons who have been critical of you. "Look at what awful people you are!!!! You're like the nazis!!!!"

I agree. Ray A either needs to start a thread over on MAD about the violence about to occur against Mormons or he needs to take off the Chicken Little suit.

[_Ray A]

I agree. Ray A either needs to start a thread over on MAD about the violence about to occur against Mormons or he needs to take off the Chicken Little suit.

You obviously haven't been around for long. I have discussed this on FAIR (before it changed to MAD) many times. I have long been critical of the angry exmo approach, and suggested it could in the future result in violence. This is not the first time. You seem to forget one salient point - Joseph Smith's death was engineered by apostates.

Several of Smith's disaffected associates at Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois—some of whom alleged that Smith had tried to marry their wives—joined together to publish a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Its first and only issue was published 7 June 1844.

The bulk of the paper was devoted to three main criticisms of Smith: The opinion that Smith had once been a true prophet, but had fallen by advocating polygamy, Exaltation, and other controversial doctrines; the opinion that Smith, as both Mayor of Nauvoo and President of the Church held too much power, which was further consolidated by the overwhelmingly Mormon make-up of Nauvoo's courts and city council, who intended establishing a theocracy via the Council of Fifty; and the belief that Smith had corrupted women by forcing, coercing or introducing them into plural marriage.

In response to public outrage generated by the paper, the Nauvoo city council passed an ordinance declaring the newspaper a public nuisance designed to promote violence against Smith and his followers. They reached this decision after lengthy discussion, including citation of William Blackstone's legal canon, which included a libelous press as a public nuisance. According to the council's minutes, Smith said he "would rather die tomorrow and have the thing smashed, than live and have it go on, for it was exciting the spirit of mobocracy among the people, and bringing death and destruction upon us."[1]

Under the council's new ordinance, Smith, as Nauvoo's mayor, in conjunction with the city council, ordered the city marshal to destroy the paper and the press on June 10, 1844. By the city marshal's account, the destruction of the press type was carried out orderly and peaceably. However, Charles A. Foster, a co-publisher of the Expositor, reported on June 12 that additionally to the printing press being destroyed, the group which he dubbed "several hundred minions ... injured the building very materially" as well,[2] though this is contradicted by the fact that the building was in use for at least another decade.[citation needed]

Smith’s critics said that he had violated freedom of the press. Some sought legal charges against Smith for the destruction of the press, including charges of inciting riot and treason. Violent threats were made against Smith and the Mormon community. Thomas Sharp, editor of the Warsaw Signal, a newspaper hostile to the Mormons, editorialized:
“ War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!—Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS! To ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!! (Warsaw Signal, 12 June 1844, p. 2.) ”

Warrants from outside Nauvoo were brought in against Smith and dismissed in Nauvoo courts on a writ of habeas corpus. Smith declared martial law on June 18 and called out the Nauvoo Legion, an organized city militia of about 5,000 men, to protect Nauvoo from outside violence.

Regardless of the truth or untruth of the charges and claims my point is this: Inflammatory comment can lead to violence. Now who here is so thick they can't understand that?

[_beastie]

Ray,

Which is it? You assured me that your current rant is actually NOT part of a long-term obsession, now you assure Bond that it is.

I think that you have been ranting about this, off and on, ever since you were treated poorly on RFM. There is a connection between the two events.

Of course violent rhetoric can lead to violence. But does violent rhetoric always lead to violence, or is it sometimes just hyperbole?

I mean, for example, repetitive linking of apostates to satan could easily lead to violence upon apostates. In the past, it did lead to violence. Today, it tends not to. So there are obviously other factors involved.

[_Ray A]

Are you going to respond to the above question (in bold) or should Fortigurn start working on "Lazy Research debunked: Ray A X 1 (by Bond X 1)?

Fortigurn can do whatever the hell he likes. I place little credibility in the majority of posters here.

You are asking me if I read those 300 articles? I was quoting statistics by Midgley, who I think has a good understanding of what anti-Mormon literature is. Other than that, it's very possible I have read most of them, since I've been reading anti-Mormon literature for 24 years. I read the FARMS Review for six years solid, and sporadically after that, and they reviewed most of the anti literature which came out each year. So yes, there's a good chance I've read most of them.

What have you read about Mormonism - did you study it for the better part of one week?

[_Ray A]

Ray,

Which is it? You assured me that your current rant is actually NOT part of a long-term obsession, now you assure Bond that it is.

It is not an obsession. What Scratch does is an obsession. What most on this board do is an obsession. What RFM does is an obsession.

I think that you have been ranting about this, off and on, ever since you were treated poorly on RFM. There is a connection between the two events.

No doubt RFM contributed to my feelings. I was shocked that exmos could be more narrowminded than they claim Mormons are. But how many times do I have to repeat that it was not RFM alone? I mentioned my posting on EMS, which further strengthened my opinions about angry exmos. On FAIR I commented on the rise of anti-Mormon/ex-Mormon blogs, and I have also criticised exmos on FAIR. I am telling you what I know, not what I think, and you are mind-reading and trying to tell me what I think.

Of course violent rhetoric can lead to violence. But does violent rhetoric always lead to violence, or is it sometimes just hyperbole?

Of course it does not always lead to violence, but all it takes is one nutty, screwed up editor like Thomas Sharpe to incite violence. Here we are with the "ones" again. ONE Martin Luther, ONE Adolf Hitler, ONE Thomas Sharpe - that's all it takes.

I mean, for example, repetitive linking of apostates to satan could easily lead to violence upon apostates. In the past, it did lead to violence. Today, it tends not to. So there are obviously other factors involved.

I don't see any language coming from Mormons today which will lead to violence against apostates. I see a lot of hateful language coming from angry exmos, and this has been quoted over and over.

[_beastie]

Oh please, Ray. Has it been that long since I started the thread about the institutionalized bigotry against apostates that you've already forgotten it?

No angry rhetoric? Only that apostates are lazy, or sinful, or listening to satan. How many times does this have to be repeated before it registers with you? Not only is there angry rhetoric on the LDS side, but it is institutionalized rhetoric that LDS are exposed to over and over and over and over and over. You even admitted that this rhetoric exists, but say that it is a part of their theology and isn't going to change.

And you tell me there is no angry rhetoric on the LDS side??????

Try this experiment. Go read some of the comments LDS leaders make about apostates and substitute some other group instead of apostates, and see how it sounds.


You're not obsessed with angry exmormons, despite having posted repeated about it over the past five years and comparing them to the worst mass murderers in recent history. Scratch, on the other hand, IS obsessed because.. he has a blog.

Clearly, obsession is in the eye of the beholder, as is "angry rhetoric".

by the way, why do you keep dragging ancient Holocaust history up? Are you trying to embarrass Germans?

[_Ray A]

Oh please, Ray. Has it been that long since I started the thread about the institutionalized bigotry against apostates that you've already forgotten it?

No angry rhetoric? Only that apostates are lazy, or sinful, or listening to satan. How many times does this have to be repeated before it registers with you? Not only is there angry rhetoric on the LDS side, but it is institutionalized rhetoric that LDS are exposed to over and over and over and over and over. You even admitted that this rhetoric exists, but say that it is a part of their theology and isn't going to change.

I know the rhetoric exists because I experienced it on the first LDS board I posted on in July 2000. It came primarily from two posters, then one of them dropped the subject and the other continued, though there were others.

And you tell me there is no angry rhetoric on the LDS side??????

No, as above, I am not saying that. But I do not believe the angry rhetoric is anywhere near as bad as what I see coming from angry exmos.

You're not obsessed with angry exmormons, despite having posted repeated about it over the past five years and comparing them to the worst mass murderers in recent history. Scratch, on the other hand, IS obsessed because.. he has a blog.

Now you're spinning some fine rhetoric here yourself, despite me saying I have not compared angry ex-Mormons to "mass murderers". I was using analogies from history, and what could happen in the future, spurred on by some deranged lunatic, like Hitler or Luther.

Clearly, obsession is in the eye of the beholder, as is "angry rhetoric".

by the way, why do you keep dragging ancient Holocaust history up? Are you trying to embarrass Germans?

This is another ludicrous point, that I'm trying to embarrass Germans. (My children are 50% German, since their mother was German.) This is obviously your retort to the fact that you continually bring up MMM and I have criticised this. You obviously see some malicious residual murderous tendencies in Mormons because of MMM, potentially a dangerous theocracy which could over-run America and hold everyone captive to their theocracy. This "one true Church" notion has to stop, according to beastie! We could have another MMM!

If you're going to extrapolate from my reasoning, I'll extrapolate from yours. Dawkins' new form of evangelising atheism has really taken hold of you, beastie.

[_beastie]

This is another ludicrous point, that I'm trying to embarrass Germans. (My children are 50% German, since their mother was German.) This is obviously your retort to the fact that you continually bring up MMM and I have criticised this. You obviously see some malicious residual murderous tendencies in Mormons because of MMM, potentially a dangerous theocracy which could over-run America and hold everyone captive to their theocracy. This "one true Church" notion has to stop, according to beastie! We could have another MMM!

If you're going to extrapolate from my reasoning, I'll extrapolate from yours. Dawkins' new form of evangelising atheism has really taken hold of you, beastie.

I "continually" bring up MMM?????? That's your imagination talking.

I brought it up on this thread because I noticed you seem to imply dark motives on the part of the makers of the new MMM movie. I wondered why, when the believers were clearly implying only a sinister bigot with ulterior motives could implicate BY in the massacre, you were silent about your opinion you stated over here.

Obviously, I don't believe you are trying to embarrass Germans by your holocaust reference. I was trying to make a point about the MMM movie. I thought I was pretty explicit in that point, but perhaps I was too subtle. Just like you refer to the holocaust for reasons OTHER than wanting to "embarrass Germans who have evolved" the makes of the MMM movie may want to explore this largely ignored event in US history for reasons OTHER than "wanting to embarrass Mormons who have evolved". I mean, just the fact that it was the largest act of domestic terrorism on US soil until to the Oklahoma City Bombing may be one reason. Just a wild suggestion.

[_beastie]

No, as above, I am not saying that. But I do not believe the angry rhetoric is anywhere near as bad as what I see coming from angry exmos.

Perhaps that is because you admit yourself that preferring a pagan lifestyle plays a large part in your inactivity. So the shoe fits, in a way.

I find it very offensive, personally, because the shoe doesn't fit me at all. Moreover, I find it disturbing when people so eagerly link others to Satan. I mean, really, isn't that about as bad as it gets, as far as rhetoric goes? And what a nice invitation to a crazy to off someone who is, after all, Satan's servant.

[_Ray A]

I "continually" bring up MMM?????? That's your imagination talking.

You have brought up MMM quite a few times, and you also like to dig out 19th century quotes to portray a sinister side of Mormonism which has little or no relevance to Mormonism today.

I brought it up on this thread because I noticed you seem to imply dark motives on the part of the makers of the new MMM movie. I wondered why, when the believers were clearly implying only a sinister bigot with ulterior motives could implicate BY in the massacre, you were silent about your opinion you stated over here.

I do imply dark motives, and from all that I have read so far I believe I'm right. As Jon Voight said, he is "worried" about "relgious fundamentalism", and September Dawn is a "warning" about "religious fundamentalism". Why they chose the Mormons to "demonstrate" this is not quite registering with me. Be careful, or we may have an evil Mormon Empire arising some time in the future.

Obviously, I don't believe you are trying to embarrass Germans by your holocaust reference. I was trying to make a point about the MMM movie. I thought I was pretty explicit in that point, but perhaps I was too subtle. Just like you refer to the holocaust for reasons OTHER than wanting to "embarrass Germans who have evolved" the makes of the MMM movie may want to explore this largely ignored event in US history for reasons OTHER than "wanting to embarrass Mormons who have evolved". I mean, just the fact that it was the largest act of domestic terrorism on US soil until to the Oklahoma City Bombing may be one reason. Just a wild suggestion.

Your last two sentences are very telling. MMM has been described as a massacre, and the use of the word "terrorism" is injected for effect. Do you call the massacre of Mormons at Haun's Mill "an act of terrorism"? Let me remind you, to give some perspective, what happened there:

The militia rode into town at approximately 4:00pm on October 30th. David Evans, a leader in the community ran towards the militia, waving his hat and calling for peace. Alerted to the militia's approach, most of the Latter Day Saint women and children fled into the woods to the south —while most of the men stayed behind to fight, entrenching themselves in the blacksmith shop. Tragically, the building was a particularly vulnerable entrenchment as the widely-spaced logs made it easy for the militiamen to fire inside. The shop became a deathtrap, as the Missourians gave no quarter, discharging about one hundred rifles. After the initial attack, several of those who had been wounded or had surrendered were shot at point blank range. Members of the militia entered the shop and found ten-year-old Sardius Smith hiding under the blacksmith's bellows. One man put the muzzle of his gun against the boy's skull and blew off the upper part of his head. The man later explained, "Nits will make lice, and if he had lived he would have become a Mormon."[5] Several bodies were mutilated or clothing stolen. [b]Houses were robbed, wagons, tents and clothing were stolen, and horses and livestock were driven off, leaving the surviving women and children destitute.

By the end of the skirmish at least eighteen Mormons were dead, including seventy-eight year old Thomas McBride and a boy of ten (Sardius Smith). Thirteen more had been injured including a woman and nine year old child. A non-Mormon ally was also killed. Three of the 250 Missourians were wounded, but none fatally. After the fighting, the dead were buried together in an unfinished well, and the remaining Mormons and their wounded gathered to Far West for protection.

We never hear about Haun's Mill, do we? It is only "those Mormons" who are terrorists.