“A Missourian killed my nephew at Haun’s Mill” is not a reason for “I’m hacking this Arkansan child to death while my bishop shoots her father in the face”. That’s an excuse. There’s nothing reasonable about misdirected vengeance.
Yes, the Mormons had been victims of some horrible crimes. And in 1857, the Mormons of Cedar City fought back. But they didn’t kill members of the mob that raided Haun’s Mill. They didn’t kill members of the mobs that drove them from their homes, or that killed Joseph Smith. No, they killed the Fancher-Baker wagon train en route from Arkansas to California.
The excuse for the massacre is “Mormons are the victims here”.
The reason for the massacre is “The U.S. Army is on its way to Salt Lake City to protect federal judges that we despise, and we are sending a message that U.S. citizens will not be safe here”.
And the whole point here is that God did nothing to prevent the massacre. If He couldn’t communicate effectively with a group of people who had received The Gift Of The Holy Ghostsup[/sup] by the laying on of hands, then He’s not going to be able to bring about the Fall of Radical Islam using Snark Hunter’s Body Signalssup[/sup].
Bullshit. You’re mixing two dictionary definitions, pretending that a reason (cause of an effect) is the same as reason (rational thinking.) That’s an absurd violation of decent rhetoric. Rush Limbaugh did the same thing when he tried to pretend that “discrimination” only meant “choice between aesthetic options.”
The causes listed are reasons why the event happened. They are not in the least reasonable, and neither is your argument, as it depends on distortions of definitions.
I don’t think it’s “close to theocratic” since the place is run under the provisions of the US constitution. But, I guess if you consider Utah to be “theocraticesque” (to coin a term), then perhaps a couple of other states, Georgia for one, should be included owing to the vestiges of their blue laws.
Excommunication is a more severe form of discipline for church members. Both those disfellowshipped and those excommunicated are not banned from attending church services or events, though; they’re encouraged to “correct their behavior that led to such discipline” and can be readmitted to the church.
You know this is about the the LDS when I (an active Mormon) read decent as deseret and wondered why the sentence didn’t make any sense. On re-reading, I saw the correct word!
Good point. I retract my statement about “reasons” needing to be “reasonable”.
Still, I don’t see how persecution in Missouri and Illinois is a “reason” for butchering Arkansan children, but not an “excuse” for butchering Arkansan children. Snark Hunter seems to be implying that playing the victim card excuses the massacre and exempts them from being labeled “terrorists”. I contend that a terrorist who plays the victim card is still a terrorist.
And I contend that an anti-Mormon spouting anything he can think of against Mormonism who pretends to be objective is still an anti-Mormon. Your malice is showing, Rhodes.
Meh. Call me anti-Mormon if it makes you feel good. I prefer “apostate,” but I’m not easily offended.
Would you care to address my point above? If God did not send sufficient Body Signals to prevent terrorism in 1857, what makes you think he’ll start sending itch-codes to Islamic terrorists today? Are today’s terrorists more likely to be receptive of your Body Signals than the early settlers of Utah were?
I think it was Deseret I was referring to when I wrote of the Mormon state.
I am not completely sure this is what I was thinking of, and I am still looking for the book from which I got these ideas. I seem to remember a Mormon nation founded in the West, which backed down and went ahead with incorporation into the US after threats of war by the US. Deseret doesn’t seem to have gone quite so far as an independent Mormon state.
This is what I am comparing to ISIS- the founding of a theocratic state and violence against certain groups in this new state. Is there another example of an established Mormon state that is more, I dunno, nation-y? Deseret lasted for about 2 years as the de facto authority. My notion was of something more like an independent nation that didn’t make it.
So that is a flaw in the comparison to ISIS. ISIS is truly assertive as an independent Islamic State. And they really don’t care who does or doesn’t like it. Don’t like it? Then war, against the whole world if it comes to that (it doesn’t seem like I’m exaggerating on this either. They literally declared war on Russia.) The Mormons in the Deseret days weren’t like that at all. More like a bunch of paperwork.
Another flaw in the comparison is how exclusionary each group is. ISIS permits their radical views and nothing else. They are serious about killing offenders of various kinds: deserters, Christians, the wrong kinds of Muslims, you name it. The Mormons encouraged the development of the railroad, which brought in lots of non-Mormon immigrants, which could not have been a surprise.
And of course I have known and been friends with Mormons. I don’t know anyone in ISIS, I don’t think I want to, and they would probably kill me if I tried to introduce myself.
So in a way, yah, it is a crap comparison. But, to give unequal time to the other side, ‘de facto’ suggests that there was no other government in the area. Buuuut… what about the natives? They were there when the Mormons arrived, and they are pretty much not there today. The way things proceeded, it is as if the natives did not exist at all. To the extent that the early Mormons killed or chased off the natives in Deseret, there is a comparison to ISIS.
The other comparison with ISIS involves my notion that the Book of Mormon was fabricated partly to sow negative sentiment about the natives, or else to justify taking their land. Scripture as incitement to violence, kind of what the Koran is in the hands of ISIS.
It may be hard to believe I’m not anti-Mormon, but the Mormon examples come from 1850 or so. If they really were terrible Indian killers in the past, they aren’t now. Maybe somewhere in all of this is an insight into how to get ISIS to change.
I apologize for the excessive vehemence in my post. The Rush Limbaugh comparison was over-the-top.
It’s only a “reason” in the sense of cause preceding effect. It helps explain to us why it happened, without justifying it in any way. The word “excuse” implies justification.
John Hinckley Jr. shot Ronald Reagan to impress Jody Foster. That’s the reason he gave. It’s a really dumb reason, but it was his reason. It isn’t an excuse by any stretch of sanity. But it is the reason.
And, yes, terrorism is still terrorism, no matter what the grievance might be – and yet some grievances are actually valid ones. Osama Bin Laden hated the U.S. because of our military presence on the Arabian peninsula. That’s why he attacked us so many times. It’s a reason, but not an excuse. His acts were still criminal, and vile beyond any possible justification.
The Mountain Meadow massacre cannot be justified or excused. It is, however, wise to try to understand why it happened. There were reasons, and it is well to try to know them.
Nah, Georgia’s not run by the Christians - it’s run by the Republicans. Admittedly, the Venn diagram of “Georgia Republican”, “evangelical Jesus-shouter”, and “old white guy” overlap almost all the way.
But Utah really is run by Mormons, is it not? I couldn’t find a list of non-Mormons who occupy state or Congressional offices in Utah, but I can’t imagine there’s many. (Again, I speak under correction). According to this article in the Salt Lake Tribune, the church has de facto imprimatur over hot-button social issues like gambling, alcohol and immigration.
I sense that I hit a nerve, but if you re-read my post, you’ll see that I was pointing out that Mormons don’t kill or sanction unbelievers, apostates, or dissidents, even in a state they pretty much control, and thus, comparing the LDS to ISIS is absurd.
Again, why comparing the Mormons to the Islamic State is ridiculous.
That was my experience all four times I lived in Georgia and whenever I visited family there–the state had some Christianity-based (specifically Baptist) blue laws which, to be honest, really interfered with people’s lives and not for any justifiable governmental concern.
Like Georgia, it’s run by people of the state who have been voted into office. As I said earlier, Utah is run under the US constitution.
The LDS church may, and does, make its opinion known on what it perceives to be “moral issues”; however, it does not run the state government.
The nerve you hit was in saying (or at least implying) that the LDS church runs the state of Utah. It does not.
Agreed on how inane it is to liken the LDS to ISIS; disagree on the LDS church controlling the state of Utah.
Well, we’re quibbling now. I didn’t say the Church of Latter-Day Saints runs Utah; I said Mormons run Utah. And they do. How many non-LDS state representatives or senators are there? How many state positions are held by Gentiles?
As a matter of fact, that Salt Lake Tribune article that I linked to in my earlier post says that the Church rarely if ever directly lobbies legislators; their influence is a matter of most legislators being themselves Mormons.
But the culture of the state is pretty well interwoven with the culture of the LDS. Do a Google search for “non-Mormons in Utah” and you find morethanonearticleandblog about the culture clash of coming from a multicultural state to the Mormon Mecca. You’ll notice they’re all pretty positive about Utah - further evidence of my contention that even if the Church ran Utah, they wouldn’t actively persecute non-believers - but they all talk about the isolation and othering of being non-LDS in the state.
So yes, the Church does not run Utah in any sense. But its members do.
Sheesh. Learned my lesson - catch me defending the Latter-Day Idiots, again…
I am honestly not trying to insult or needle Monty - or at least, not specifically. I did call the LDS idiots, because I think their theology and beliefs are nonsense and their founder a con-man. But I share similar ideas about the evangelical Christianity of so many Georgians, as well. And yes, it’s ridiculous that it we couldn’t buy alcohol on Sundays (a blue law that was overwhelmingly voted down recently, by the way), or that the repeal of the unconstitutional law criminalizing sodomy was blocked for many years because the Speaker of the House thought gay sex was disgusting. I’ve got no double standard - Georgia’s government is pretty fucked up, and it’s monolithically Republican- every single statewide position is held by a Republican.
But that doesn’t change the fact that Utah’s government is equally overwhelmingly Mormon, and the LDS is the dominant cultural entity, and that being non-Mormon is a social handicap that takes work to overcome (and further, they’ve got some pretty stupid blue laws as well). If I’m wrong, show me some evidence that the LDS isn’t the biggest dog in the state.
It also doesn’t change the fact that the LDS doesn’t practice the same sort of sanctions on apostates, dissidents and non-believers that ISIS does, making the comparison nonsensical. Which I’ve said in, what, four posts now?
So unclench your buttcheeks, Monty, climb down off your high horse, and let’s get back to talking about what a load of bollocks the OP’s “itchy feet = God’s talking to me!” idea is. I’m sorry if I’ve gored your sacred cow. But that’s what happens around here, you know.
Sure, I called Monty an idiot…but I call *other *people idiots too!
(Seriously, if I say “'Dopers blow goats,” and you’re a 'Doper, I just insulted you. When you say “LDS are idiots,” and Monty is LDS, you just insulted him. You can justify it all you want, but I reckon it’s easier to just own it.)
Sigh. Okay, I called Mormons “idiots”, Monty is a Mormon, therefore I called Monty an idiot. The syllogism is sound. I wasn’t trying to call him specifically, an idiot, you understand, but yes, I called him an idiot.
My only defense is the classic “kindergarten recess” argument: “He started it!” This whole trainwreck of a hijack began when I stepped in to defend the LDS from a specious comparison to ISIS by pointing out that in a state that Mormons control, they tolerate dissent and non-belief. I implied as well that even if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints controlled Utah the way ISIS controls Ramadi, they wouldn’t practice the horrors that the the Islamic State does, because the Mormons aren’t hate-filled homicidal assholes.
Monty, however, jumped to the conclusion that I was making an invidious comparison between Utah and my home state of Georgia, and took me to task for ignoring the log in my eye to point out the mote in his while implying I was a howling hypocrite. Completely missing the point of my post, but hey, that happens.
In any case, I’m not trying to get into a flame war. I have no desire to trade insults with him or anyone else in this thread, save maybe the OP. I don’t like being snarked at when I’m coming to your defense, though.
I feel like the “he” in “he started it,” so might as well offer up a rebuttal. I didn’t mean it that way. Mormons today just aren’t like ISIS, and even back then there were only a few notable points of overlap. The gist is that the area was inhabited by “natives”, presumably back to antiquity; Mormons showed up and founded the state of Deseret. Perhaps not coincidentally, their scripture portrayed the natives as a lost tribe of Israel who had rejected Jesus; The “native” demographic all but disappeared from the territory formerly known as Deseret.
So, religious states with demographics targeted(?) for elimination.
What happened to the natives? Are the Mormons responsible for their disappearance or not?
If they are, answering the question, “what could have prevented it?” could give insight into the ISIS problem. (FWIW, world powers seem to be going with military force.)
