Brigham Young & The Journal Of Discourses

[Scottie]

Excuse me...but Brigham Young was speaking in theory. He created an extreme 'what if' scenario...and then gave a theoretical what if response...the instant killing of an unfaithful spouse...and then told the listeners that such a theoretical response would never be appropriate.

Where did it say it wouldn't be appropriate??? He said your hands better be clean!!

[selek]

I have to say that both Obiwan and Selek (not to mention some others) seem way too demeaning, defensive and demanding. There have been some reasonable people here though thankfully.

Thinking for yourself and backing up your allegations.

Ye Gods! How unreasonably high a standard those Mormons set!

[lukas_s]

Okay, that was no better than Obiwans demeaning comments earlier.

I agree with Scottie, Selek. Telling somebody that their relationship with any family member is less than ideal because they're an embarrassment and shameful is absolutely ridiculous. Let him have whatever opinion of Mormonism and its leaders that he wants, but you of all people, as a Saint, should know that family is of the utmost importance. Making light of that makes you look like a child.

Comments such as yours have no place on a board full of faithful Latter-day Saints.

[Scottie]

Sad part is- that was the revised and toned down version.

When I called Obiwan off, Wes was actually engaging.

Now he's just sulking in the corner like a pouty five-year-old in short pants who just had his balloon popped.

I for one am proud of my daughters because they have the fortitude to state what they believe, and the intellectual integrity to defend it themselves (however poorly).

I can't imagine how humiliated I'd be if one of my kids were a sad sack who knocked on other people's religions for the sheer bloody-minded cynicism of it- and didn't have the testicular fortitude to do his own dirty work.

But that's just me.

SELEK

DOWN

BOY

[selek]

Where did it say it wouldn't be appropriate??? He said your hands better be clean!!

And since, as he acknowledged, none of our hands are clean........

[Bsix]

Where did it say it wouldn't be appropriate??? He said your hands better be clean!!

Let me clarify. BY said that punishing the spouse would be metaphorically correct...but then stated that our hands would need to be clean...and then proceeded to declare that none of us were clean...and then stated that we should have compassion.

To me, BY's position on punishing and adulterer is more blunt and dramatic in its rhetorical approach...but not to far off of Jesus' response to those who would have stoned the woman taken in adultery.

He prevented her lawful execution only because those who would have stoned her were unworthy to do so. He did not declare that capital punishment as a commandement from God was wrong.

Six

[ttribe]

I guess I would expect more from a supposed prophet of God. Anyone can have a "common thought" of the day. I thought prophets were supposed to have revelatory information? What about the racist statements by BY? There were countless numbers of people from that day who OPPOSED racism so the excuse that "everyone was racist back then" does not fly.

So, because he was ordained as a prophet, he was supposed to act like one 100% of the time and only say prophetic things? So, for example, if he stood up from behind his desk and said - "I have to urinate" he's not a prophet because it wasn't a prophet-like thing to say? Do you see how absurd your line of reasoning is?

If you want to address the racism thing, why don't you look into what BLACK members of the Church have to say about this - Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5.

Now, you need to actually read these things not just glance through and call it good. That is, if you want to apply any intellectual honesty to this pursuit of yours.

[wes]

But have you done anything to lead to harsh responses? I'd be interested to see some personal responsibility-taking.

I will take responsibility for everything I have said on this thread. I fail to see how BY's statement can be justified in ANY context. Not sure what else you want from me.

[Scottie]

And since, as he acknowledged, none of our hands are clean........

Where??? CFR

[Agellius]

Actually- wes has done little more than cower and cheerlead for Scottie (notably, only when Scottie is supporting him).

Otherwise, he's pretty much surrendered the field.

Well, yeah. I posted that comment after having only read about two pages of this thread. After having read another five, I concur that he hasn't had much to say by way of argument.

Intent or not, his showing is remarkably pathetic.

Maybe, but you don't have to be so mean about it.

[Scottie]

Maybe, but you don't have to be so mean about it.

It's what he does. He's quite renowned for it. I think he wears his brutality as a badge of honor...thought I can't figure out why...

[selek]

I agree with Scottie, Selek. Telling somebody that their relationship with any family member is less than ideal because they're an embarrassment and shameful is absolutely ridiculous. Let him have whatever opinion of Mormonism and its leaders that he wants, but you of all people, as a Saint, should know that family is of the utmost importance. Making light of that makes you look like a child.

Comments such as yours have no place on a board full of faithful Latter-day Saints.

I hear what you're saying- but your outrage appears to be selective.

You don't seem to mind Wes invoking and demeaning his father- especially when it indicts the Church.

You don't seem to mind Wes throwing rocks and then playing the victim when he gets slapped down.

You don't seem to mind seven pages of unfounded slander and innuendo against the Mormons.

So pardon me if I don't exactly cry a river over the fate of one obsequious toad who couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

SELEK

DOWN

BOY

Scottie, nobody but my mother and my grandmother talks to me in that tone of voice.

Unless you're tougher than they are, you might reconsider encroaching on their turf.

[wes]

So, because he was ordained as a prophet, we was supposed to act like one 100% of the time and only say prophetic things? So, for example, if he stood up from behind his desk and said - "I have to urinate" he's not a prophet because it wasn't a prophet-like thing to say? Do you see how absurd your line of reasoning is?

If you want to address the racism thing, why don't you look into what BLACK members of the Church have to say about this - Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5.

Now, you need to actually read these things not just glance through and call it good. That is, if you want to apply any intellectual honesty to this pursuit of yours.

Yes, I am aware that there are black mormons who think mormonism is fine. That does not eliminate the reality that BY was a racist and that Mormonism has racist teachings. The fact that blacks could not have the priesthood until 1978 because of a new revelation does not dismiss the previous doctrine.

[ttribe]

Yes, I am aware that there are black mormons who think mormonism is fine. That does not eliminate the reality that BY was a racist and that Mormonism has racist teachings. The fact that blacks could not have the priesthood until 1978 because of a new revelation does not dismiss the previous doctrine.

Okay, clearly you didn't actually read anything I linked.

Selek may be right.

[Bsix]

Yes, I am aware that there are black mormons who think mormonism is fine. That does not eliminate the reality that BY was a racist and that Mormonism has racist teachings. The fact that blacks could not have the priesthood until 1978 because of a new revelation does not dismiss the previous doctrine.

Wes:

I hope you consider my responses to be considerate...and that I am not judging you in the manner in which you have condemned Mormons of doing.

I will admit that statements like the one above give me pause to think that your mindest does match someone who has made up their mind with a hostile slant toward Mormonism.

Regards,

Six

[selek]

Well, yeah. I posted that comment after having only read about two pages of this thread. After having read another five, I concur that he hasn't had much to say by way of argument.

Truth be told- that's really all I want.

He's been calling names, sneering at good men, and making a lot of false allegations about men who's shoe latchet he isn't worthy to tie. That- coupled with the pathological lack of substance- is infuriating.

I tried to be nice when it looked like he was actually going to engage, and I was quite sincere with my offers to discuss his concerns.

He didn't want to play- he found throwing stones from the corner was much more fun.

Maybe, but you don't have to be so mean about it.

Sorry. Ineptitude enrages me almost as much as cowardice.

And since wes won't come out and act like a man, there's really little point in continuing to try and engage him.

I'm bowing out of the thread before I really get angry.

You can keep playing with the troll if you like, but to me there's no point.

If he'd been the least bit sincere about learning..........

[lukas_s]

I hear what you're saying- but your outrage appears to be selective.

You don't seem to mind Wes invoking and demeaning his father- especially when it indicts the Church.

You don't seem to mind Wes throwing rocks and then playing the victim when he gets slapped down.

You don't seem to mind seven pages of unfounded slander and innuendo against the Mormons.

So pardon me if I don't exactly cry a river over the fate of one obsequious toad who couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

Scottie, nobody but my mother and my grandmother talks to me in that tone of voice.

No, I don't mind any of the above, Selek. I'm secure enough in my faith that anything slanderous he may say against the Church will not bother me.

Guess what we are charged to do? EMULATE CHRIST.

I doubt Christ would've made light of somebody's family situation as you have done. There are many that come in here and make light of our faith, turning that around and attacking a person just shows how absolutely childish you can be.

Attack his flawed information about the Church with actual doctrine, history, words of our leaders, whatever, but don't turn this into something personal. That's wrong and you should be able to see that.

[Scottie]

You don't seem to mind seven pages of unfounded slander and innuendo against the Mormons.

I don't think this particular point is fair.

While perhaps not the most long winded (can you be long winded on a computer??) writer, he has tried his best to detail why he believes this quote is disturbing.

I can see his point.

I don't think Wes has the eloquence that you think you have, Selek. He is trying his best to get his point across. Your badgering him for more information isn't really helping matters. Perhaps you need to be better at asking detailed questions, or leading someone to give more detail. Your vague "why" questions aren't much more productive.

Take what he has written and lets work with it.

[wes]

No, I don't mind any of the above, Selek. I'm secure enough in my faith that anything slanderous he may say against the Church will not bother me.

Guess what we are charged to do? EMULATE CHRIST.

I doubt Christ would've made light of somebody's family situation as you have done. There are many that come in here and make light of our faith, turning that around and attacking a person just shows how absolutely childish you can be.

Attack his flawed information about the Church with actual doctrine, history, words of our leaders, whatever, but don't turn this into something personal. That's wrong and you should be able to see that.

Thanks lukas. I agree that Selek is a very poor witness for Mormonism.

[ttribe]

Thanks lukas. I agree that Selek is a very poor witness for Mormonism.

Nothing like a little turn of the knife.

[selek]

Guess what we are charged to do? EMULATE CHRIST.

So does that mean if I use the excuse I thought Wes was a money changer you'll give me a free pass too?

Attack his flawed information about the Church with actual doctrine, history, words of our leaders, whatever, but don't turn this into something personal. That's wrong and you should be able to see that.

There's a reason I'm bowing out now....

[The Nehor]

This is well expressed. I confess I have done as you describe, in the past.

However, calling him a wolf may be going a little far. In making that judgment, you are accusing him of intending to do harm, are you not? Perhaps that is not his intention. Though I often enjoyed arguing with Mormons, it was never my intention to harm them.

A lot of people like arguing on subjects in which they feel confident of victory. Wes probably did come here to provoke "combat", as you put it, feeling that confidence. So engage him in combat, and show him that victory is not quite so easy as he supposed, as I myself was shown at one time. Which you have been doing very well.

I would just suggest, giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives. At worst, maybe he seeks to boost his ego by defeating hapless Mormons in intellectual and spiritual combat; at best, maybe he hopes to save you from error and lead you to truth. In neither case is it likely that he intends any real harm.

I'm calling him a wolf more for his deceptive approach and pretense of ignorance then his goals. Many of the critics here have admitted they think Joseph Smith is a fraud and explained why. Wes is pretending to be ignorant in order to get more patronizing responses and when we call him on it he throws out the approach of commenting on how mean Mormons are.

BE HONEST!

Have a position and share it.

DON'T lie to trap people.

DON'T deceive people because you think it will score you rhetorical points.

In my line of work I've had to teach some things that are a little controversial (not in the Church). When you do so honest disagreement can difficult but can be dealt with. I once had someone try to spin a web of false positions to trick me into making statements and taking positions they wanted to shoot down. It's juvenile and stupid and reveals the weakness of your position, not that of your opponent. I kicked the idiot out.

[wes]

I'm calling him a wolf more for his deceptive approach and pretense of ignorance then his goals. Many of the critics here have admitted they think Joseph Smith is a fraud and explained why. Wes is pretending to be ignorant in order to get more patronizing responses and when we call him on it he throws out the approach of commenting on how mean Mormons are.

BE HONEST!

Have a position and share it.

DON'T lie to trap people.

DON'T deceive people because you think it will score you rhetorical points.

In my line of work I've had to teach some things that are a little controversial (not in the Church). When you do so honest disagreement can difficult but can be dealt with. I once had someone try to spin a web of false positions to trick me into making statements and taking positions they wanted to shoot down. It's juvenile and stupid and reveals the weakness of your position, not that of your opponent. I kicked the idiot out.

I have not hidden the fact that I think both JS and BY were frauds. There are lengthy reasons as to why I think this that I would be happy to share.

[Koneko]

I see nothing in there that mentions if God required it.

He said, point blank, it would be fine with God.

I base my opinion on the following:

If the Lord so order it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live; and I say let them live and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do. There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt.

I believe that this implies that the previous stated situation the Lord did so order that they were caught in the act, and ordered them not to live. Although I grant it is poorly worded, and I can see why Wes is having a difficult time grappling with it. This is my personal interpretation, you may understand it differently, and that is for you work out through your own prayer and study. Wes, please don't let harsh responses deter you from asking about things that trouble you. You deserve answers, but we or your father may not always have them. So especially with your Father, try to understand that he may just not know how to answer you. If you truly do want an answer, or at least discussion, you must be willing to elaborate on precisely what bothers you. It may seem obvious to you, but as you can probably see from my interpretation, we all see things differently from our own points of view. As a reference, I would suggest speaking to your local mission president. They deal with alot of similar questions from converts such as myself.

[ttribe]

I have not hidden the fact that I think both JS and BY were frauds. There are lengthy reasons as to why I think this that I would be happy to share.

And yet you refuse to respond in a thoughtful manner to any contrary evidence to your preconceived conclusions.