ERayR Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 I said once before that Cobalt-70 is radioactive.LehiThe trolls are getting "smoother"
LeSellers Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 The trolls are getting "smoother"I keep wondering why some are still around. The half-life of Cobalt 70 is ~119ms.Lehi
Jaybear Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Were the perpetrators likely affected by violent religious rhetoric? Yes. No Did they likely believe their act was justified by God? Yes. NoSo then, when the call was made to "Do your duty!" If not a duty to God, then to whom or what?
LeSellers Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 So then, when the call was made to "Do your duty!" If not a duty to God, then to whom or what?A host of alternatives exists.That one cannot envision any of them is indicative of nearly as many possibilities, but these all focus on the unimaginative one.Lehi
Zakuska Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 No, but past crimes (particularly crimes against property) are not a legal justification for murder, and never have been.Seems to me that in the old west, you could get strung up for stealing a horse.
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Zakuska:It is always interesting when some project modern mores and laws back in time.
Jaybear Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Zakuska:It is always interesting when some project modern mores and laws back in time.What do you mean? The massacre was a heinous crime, then and now.
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Jaybear:Yes it was. I'm not argueing that it was anything less. However self defense definitions have changed over the last 3000 years just as much as the cultures have.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) So then, when the call was made to "Do your duty!" If not a duty to God, then to whom or what?As I recall, Turley et al contradict the long-held belief that this was the signal to begin the shooting, "Halt!" in actuality being the signal.The "Do your duty" thing makes good grist for rhetoric, but apparently, it is just lore. Edited October 28, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Cobalt-70 Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 From my reading, it appears that robbery with violence (as opposed to theft by stealth or deception) was not considered as merely a crime against property. It was primarily a crime against the person; the seizure of the property in question was the means by which the attacker dramatised his victory over the victim. A violent response would have accordingly been justified.You really are Theophilus07, aren't you?No.Please cite your references that say a person is justified under Biblical law in killing a person who robbed him in the past, but was no longer an imminent threat? (Preferably by, or peer-reviewed by, someone without a religious interest in minimizing the illegality of Nephi's killing of Laban.)
Zakuska Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 What do you mean? The massacre was a heinous crime, then and now.I agree, but Cobalt and I were talking about Nephi and Laban at the moment.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Seems to me that in the old west, you could get strung up for stealing a horse.By the law. If it were done outside the legal system, then it was murder, same as now.
LeSellers Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 By the law. If it were done outside the legal system, then it was murder, same as now.Your chronocentrism, specifically, your presentism, colors your view on this.Please describe the law under which both Laban and Nephi lived that made this murder, as opposed to an execution.You are the one who calls it murder: the burden is yours.Lehi
citizen28 Posted October 28, 2011 Author Posted October 28, 2011 A host of alternatives exists.That one cannot envision any of them is indicative of nearly as many possibilities, but these all focus on the unimaginative one.LehiThe unimaginative one, i.e. the most likely one... I was once asked by a non-LDS friend if there was anything, God could/would not command. Based on scriptural accounts, he's capable of commanding the slaying of an unconscious, defenseless man (Nephi), the sacrifice of a child (Abraham & Isaac), and the killing of infants (1Sam 15 - if you accept it as translated correctly). On the other hand, God had never been known to command fornication or rape.
why me Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Were the perpetrators likely affected by violent religious rhetoric? Yes. Did they likely believe their act was justified by God? Yes.I can't see good, conscience-driven men taking part in such a vile, indefensible act without believing it had divine approval. Assuming Lee was a scoundrel, what better way to motivate his men to action than giving them the impression that their religious leaders had ordered the massacre. Lee himself insisted that he believed George A. Smith and Brigham Young approved it. I'm not convinced that Smith or Young actually DID approve the massacre, but I believe Lee was under the impression that they had.You are still overlooking historical context and what was happening around the saints at that time. If the antimormons would have taken a break and went about their own lives without worrying about mormon polygamy and what the mormons were doing in their new location, much could have been avoided. And that was my point.It would have been interesting if the mormons were allowed to practice their faith without persecutions. The history of the lds would have been totally different and Joseph Smith could have lived a happy long life. But...that was not to be. For those saints who were around at that time, to have their prophet and his brother murdered by blood thirsty mobs and to have his wife stay in Nauvoo were big things to overcome for those saints who headed west. Not to mention the loss of family on the trek westward.And when we also put the burning of homes and killings by the mobs and the destruction of personal property and the unfairness of the arrest of Joseph Smith on charges of destruction of private property when all around the saints lost property to mobs who were never prosecuted, well...shell shocked would be an understatement for the saints out west.
LeSellers Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) The unimaginative one, i.e. the most likely one..The "one" to which I referred in the sentence you quoted was the person who could not imagine alternative duties to which the apocryphal "Do your duty" referred, rather than to the duty to God that "Jaybear" assumed it to be. He, the "unimaginative one", could conceive of only one duty. I can envision many.All of this assumes, without concrete evidence, that "Do your duty!" was ever uttered that morning at all.Lehi Edited October 28, 2011 by LeSellers
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) Cobalt-70:You're kdding right?A partial list of capital crimes in the Bible.From Wiki. Religious practicesSacrificing to gods other than YHWH[2][3]Passing children through the fire to/as [MLK]. The triconsonantal root MLK has traditionally been translated as if it were the name of an otherwise unattested deity - Moloch - but may just describe a type of sacrifice. It is generally thought that this refers to a form of Human sacrifice similar to that of which the Phoenicians (particularly in Carthage) have historically been widely accused[4] However, the Septuagint reads "You shall not give your seed to serve a ruler", suggesting that the root M-L-K should be more properly rendered as 'king/ruler'.Worshiping Baal Peor[5]False prophecy[6][7][8]Necromancy, according to the masoretic text; specifically those who are masters over ghosts (Hebrew: Ba'al ob) and those who gain information from the dead (Hebrew: Yidde'oni).[9] The Septuagint instead condemns gastromancy (Greek: eggastrimuthos), and enchantment (Greek: epaoidos).[10]According to the masoretic text, practitioners of kashaph[11] - incanting maleficium. According to the Septuagint version of the same passages, pharmakeia[12] - poisoners. Historically this passage has been translated into English using vague terminology, condemning witchcraft in general.[13]Blasphemy[14]Sabbath breaking[15][16][17]A foreigner (outsider) who gets close to the tabernacle[18] [edit] Sexual practices Rape by a man of a betrothed woman in the countryside[19]Being either participant in consensual sexual activity, in which a betrothed woman consensually loses her virginity to a man[20]Loss of virginity by a woman prior to marriage, to someone other than her husband while falsely representing herself as a virgin[21]Adultery with a married woman.[22]Marrying your wife's mother[23]Certain forms of incest, namely if it involves the father's wife or a daughter-in-law.[24] Other forms of incest receive lesser punishment; sexual activity with a sister/stepsister is given excommunication for a punishment;[25]; if it involves a brother's wife or an uncle's wife it is just cursed[26] and sexual activity with an aunt that is a blood relation is merely criticized.[27]Prostitution by the daughter of a priest[28]Certain activities with a male (Hebrew: zakhar) involving what the masoretic text literally terms lay layings woman (Hebrew: tishkav mishkvei ishah),[29][30] and the Septuagint literally terms beds [verb] the woman's/wife's bed (Greek: koimethese koiten gynaikos);[31][32] the gender of the target of the command is commonly understood to be male, but not explicitly stated. The correct translation and interpretation of this passage, and its implications for Homosexuality in Judaism and Homosexuality in Christianity, are controversial. Translations into English are wide-ranging.[33][34]Bestiality[35][36] [edit] Miscellaneous Murder, believed by Jews to apply to believing non-Jews, or (Noachides) as well[37][38][39][40]Smiting a parent[41]Cursing (ie repudiating) a parent[42][43]A son who persists in disobeying his parents[44]Kidnapping[45][46]Negligent homicide, specifically by ox-goring[47]Contempt of court[48]False witness to a capital Edited October 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint
citizen28 Posted October 28, 2011 Author Posted October 28, 2011 You are still overlooking historical context and what was happening around the saints at that time. If the antimormons would have taken a break and went about their own lives without worrying about mormon polygamy and what the mormons were doing in their new location, much could have been avoided. And that was my point.It would have been interesting if the mormons were allowed to practice their faith without persecutions. The history of the lds would have been totally different and Joseph Smith could have lived a happy long life. But...that was not to be. For those saints who were around at that time, to have their prophet and his brother murdered by blood thirsty mobs and to have his wife stay in Nauvoo were big things to overcome for those saints who headed west. Not to mention the loss of family on the trek westward.And when we also put the burning of homes and killings by the mobs and the destruction of personal property and the unfairness of the arrest of Joseph Smith on charges of destruction of private property when all around the saints lost property to mobs who were never prosecuted, well...shell shocked would be an understatement for the saints out west.I think you're right about the kinds of things that invoked the ire of the Mormons. I hope it's true that most of the Saints would never have involved themselves in such an act. The MMM was the perfect storm of violent religious rhetoric, wartime hysteria, and local leaders capable of ordering deceptive mass-murder. Amazingly, the perpetrators managed to magnificently one-up their persecutors by murdering men, women, and children in cold blood, even after full surrender had taken place.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 There might well be a little bit of him in you, but not in me.If you are a Mormon, especially if you came up through the Primary system and sang songs like "Follow the Prophet," and you believe that your priesthood leaders will never lead you astray, then there is a bit--just a bit--of John D. Lee in you. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. Whether it is good or bad really depends on what kind of people your priesthood leaders are. For Lee, not so good. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 You're kdding right?A partial list of capital crimes in the Bible.I don't get your point. These are capital crimes, certainly. But that doesn't mean that any Joe Blow, like Nephi, could execute someone for their crimes. Vigilante execution was, and is, murder.
LeSellers Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 I don't get your point. These are capital crimes, certainly. But that doesn't mean that any Joe Blow, like Nephi, could execute someone for their crimes. Vigilante execution was, and is, murder.Then please explain the need for "cities of refuge".Lehi
Nevo Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) The MMM was the perfect storm of violent religious rhetoric, wartime hysteria, and local leaders capable of ordering deceptive mass-murder. Amazingly, the perpetrators managed to magnificently one-up their persecutors by murdering men, women, and children in cold blood, even after full surrender had taken place.I agree. As bad as Haun's Mill was, Mountain Meadows was worse. At Mountain Meadows, Mormon militiamen killed scores more people than were ever killed in Missouri or Illinois, and did so under flag of truce after disarming them first. It was premeditated, cold-blooded murder. Edited October 28, 2011 by Nevo
Scott Lloyd Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 I agree. As bad as Haun's Mill was, Mountain Meadows was worse. At Mountain Meadows, Mormon militiamen killed scores more people than were ever killed in Missouri or Illinois, and did so under flag of truce after disarming them first. It was premeditated, cold-blooded murder.But unlike Haun's Mill, Mountain Meadows was not an element of a chronic pattern of oppression, deprivation of civil liberties and constitutional rights, dispossession of homes and property, and government-ordered expulsion.Incidentally, just how many Mormons did die as a result of persecution in Missouri and Illinois? You appear to have a handle on a total number. I'm curious to know what it is and whether it includes those who suffered and died from exposure to the elements after being driven from their homes.
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) cobalt 70:Nephi was rightly justified in self defense regardless of any temporary drunkedness by Laban. Laban had already sent his men to murder Nephi and his family for their gold. Edited October 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint
citizen28 Posted October 28, 2011 Author Posted October 28, 2011 cobalt 70:Nephi was rightly justified in self defense regardless of any temporary drunkedness by Laban. Laban had already sent his men to murder Nephi and his family for their gold.The murder of Laban was completely unnecessary from a practical standpoint.
Recommended Posts