TBMs and MMM

Post by **_beastie** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:39 pm

First, I don't agree that those local religous leaders are clearly active, devout Mormons.

Are you suggesting that the GAs chose local religious leaders who were NOT clearly active, devout Mormons?

Post by **_The Nehor** » Sat May 05, 2007 10:07 pm

beastie wrote:
First, I don't agree that those local religous leaders are clearly active, devout Mormons.

Are you suggesting that the GAs chose local religious leaders who were NOT clearly active, devout Mormons?

Active probably. How do you judge devout? I don't think Bennett was devout but he was clearly active.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat May 05, 2007 10:26 pm

Active probably. How do you judge devout? I don't think Bennett was devout but he was clearly active.

The judges in Israel judge devout all the time. Let's just say these were temple-worthy Mormons whose higher leaders believed to be worthy and called to important local positions of leadership.

Moreover, is there any evidence that these people did not view their actions as a religious duty?

Post by **_Blixa** » Sat May 05, 2007 10:52 pm

Wait. Are we talking about Dame, Higbee, Haight, Lee and co.? Not devout? Not active? That's the first time I've heard anyone claim that.

Who is Bennett?

As for BY being merely a passionate speaker whose words look bad if you "nit pick" them...well I don't think sustained study of the man, his speechs, his actions and the history of Utah/Mormonism under his rule supports that conclusion.

Post by **_ajax18** » Sun May 06, 2007 12:23 am

Nehor even if Brigham Young didn't order the MMM, that doesn't explain why David O'McKay reinstated John Lee post mortem. When has this ever been done with people who were excommunicted? It seemed like they wanted to quietly admit to the family that he was only doing what he was ordered.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Sun May 06, 2007 9:01 am

ajax18 wrote:Nehor even if Brigham Young didn't order the MMM, that doesn't explain why David O'McKay reinstated John Lee post mortem. When has this ever been done with people who were excommunicted? It seemed like they wanted to quietly admit to the family that he was only doing what he was ordered.

They did the same thing with other apostates, Lyman Wight comes to mind.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Sun May 06, 2007 9:03 am

Blixa wrote:Wait. Are we talking about Dame, Higbee, Haight, Lee and co.? Not devout? Not active? That's the first time I've heard anyone claim that.

Who is Bennett?

As for BY being merely a passionate speaker whose words look bad if you "nit pick" them...well I don't think sustained study of the man, his speechs, his actions and the history of Utah/Mormonism under his rule supports that conclusion.

True devotion to Christ is incompatible with their actions. Comparable to Pharisees, Zoramites, and the Republican Party.

John C. Bennett was one of the instigators of the Nauvoo persecution. He fooled Joseph about his sincerity.

Post by **_beastie** » Sun May 06, 2007 2:22 pm

True devotion to Christ is incompatible with their actions. Comparable to Pharisees, Zoramites, and the Republican Party.

John C. Bennett was one of the instigators of the Nauvoo persecution. He fooled Joseph about his sincerity.

LOL on the Republican party! You heretic!

Do you believe that the perpetrators believed they were doing God's will? I'm not talking about whether or not YOU believe they were doing God's will.

Post by **_Who Knows** » Sun May 06, 2007 2:35 pm

The Nehor wrote:
ajax18 wrote:Nehor even if Brigham Young didn't order the MMM, that doesn't explain why David O'McKay reinstated John Lee post mortem. When has this ever been done with people who were excommunicted? It seemed like they wanted to quietly admit to the family that he was only doing what he was ordered.

They did the same thing with other apostates, Lyman Wight comes to mind.

Same for my G-G-Grandfather.

Post by **_guy sajer** » Sun May 06, 2007 3:01 pm

The Nehor wrote:
Blixa wrote:Wait. Are we talking about Dame, Higbee, Haight, Lee and co.? Not devout? Not active? That's the first time I've heard anyone claim that.

Who is Bennett?

As for BY being merely a passionate speaker whose words look bad if you "nit pick" them...well I don't think sustained study of the man, his speechs, his actions and the history of Utah/Mormonism under his rule supports that conclusion.

True devotion to Christ is incompatible with their actions. Comparable to Pharisees, Zoramites, and the Republican Party.

What's your basis for saying this? For centuries, truly devoted Christians have committed no end of atrocities, often sincerely believing they were doing God's will. They read the same Bible you do. Why is your understanding of God's will, ex ante, more legitimate than theirs? (Answer below)

This is what moderate Muslims claim too. The suicide bombers are not following Allah. Yet the suicide bombers think that it's the moderates who are not following Allah.

Christ, Allah, the Bible, the Koran are little more than rorschatz (sic) ink blots in which the devout see what they want to see.

Now the answer to the question above. Your (not you specifically, but Christianity in general) view of God's will is more valid than that of the violent, albeit devout, fanatic, because it is tempered by secular notions of morality. For example, the notion of human rights is not a religious one, but a secular one, and the power of this idea provides the filter through which the modern religious West understands religious/Biblical morality.

To the extent we live in a "moral" society in the West (and I do not define "morality" in this case by who is having sex with whom), it is due more to the ideas of secular progressive moral philosophy (you know, the kind of progressive philosophy that Coggins hates so much) that it is to the ideas and influence of religion. (I am not saying religion has played no role, only that its role has been largely subordinated.)